ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Work Programme

Andrew McDonald: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Work programme.

Esther McVey: First, I am pleased to inform the House that the Work programme is working, and that its performance has significantly improved since being launched in June 2011. By the end of June 2012, 24,000 people had found lasting work. By June 2013, there had been a dramatic increase to 168,000. I should like to put on the record that credit must go to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), for his rigorous and meticulous work, which brought about that dramatic increase.

Andrew McDonald: Of the 10 worst constituencies for longer-term unemployment, seven have seen the number of people out of work for more than 12 months increase, and that includes my own town of Middlesbrough. Why are the Minister’s policies failing so badly among the people and in the places that most need help?

Esther McVey: I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that, actually, despite the picture he portrays, work is improving. There have been significant job outcomes across the country—they are up 1 million—and the claimant count is down. Inactivity is at record low levels and the number of households where someone is in work is higher now under this Government than it was in any year under the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Bridgen: Can my hon. Friend confirm that tackling youth unemployment is a major priority for the Government, and that young people—18 to 24-year-olds—have benefited from the Work programme, with more than 100,000 finding some sort of work through it? Does she agree that the Work programme is working?

Esther McVey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Work programme is working. In particular, let us look at the figures for youth unemployment. The number of
	18 to 24-year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance has fallen for 15 consecutive months. It is now 60,000 less than in May 2010. Youth unemployment is down from the numbers we inherited from Labour, and the number of young people not in education, employment or training is at its lowest for a decade.

Anne Begg: But for one group of people—those who have health problems or a disability—the numbers are truly dreadful. What will the Government do to change their approach so that that group of people is not left behind?

Esther McVey: For the first time in history, we are dealing with the people the hon. Lady—the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions—is talking about. Labour Members shake their heads, but I am afraid that they abandoned those 1.4 million people; we are supporting them. Of those on the Work programme, more than 380,000 are in work, and 168,000 have found lasting work. Ninety per cent. of those have been in employment for nine months or more. We are working on and dealing with that matter, but Labour abandoned it.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the Minister to her new brief, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to his.
	The invitation to tender for the Work programme said that, if there was no programme at all, 15% of people on employment and support allowance, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) has just referred, would be in a sustained job outcome within two years. With the Work programme, the number has been about one third of that. Surely that underperformance is unacceptable.

Esther McVey: That is not true at all. We have reached out and supported people who were never supported under the Labour Government. Equally, I would like to separate those on JSA, who have exceeded targets, and those on ESA who must move closer to the workplace, which is what we are statutorily obliged to do, but not to put them in a job. We are doing that. Because of that, we are looking at the programme as a whole and putting further support in for those people. It is successful and, as I have said, Labour failed to do it.

Stephen Timms: The Minister should ask her civil servants about pathways to work.
	In his spending review on 26 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called on the Secretary of State to make a hard-headed assessment of underperforming programmes in his Department. What progress is there with the hard-headed assessment of the Work programme?

Esther McVey: The Work programme is not an underperforming programme: 60% of people are off benefits. We continue to modify and improve it, which is only right. We have set up a best practice committee so that people can get even better. There is no underperformance. We are proud of the record. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman one thing: those people who have got jobs, whom he dismisses so discourteously, are very proud of what we have done.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Alec Shelbrooke: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the UN on the under-occupancy penalty.

Iain Duncan Smith: Strangely, I was not asked to discuss the removal of the spare room subsidy, or any other matter, with the UN representative.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the UN housing expert made no reference to the 250,000 households living in overcrowded accommodation or the efforts that the Government are making to bring fairness and respect to the welfare system after the mess that lot left it in?

Iain Duncan Smith: Mrs Rolnik from the UN appeared over here, seemingly at the invitation of those opposed to all our policies, the Labour, or welfare, party included. I was interested in the notes that came back from the UN after she left. Some of the officials said,
	“who is that strange woman; why is she talking about bedrooms and why on earth do we have a UN Housing Rapporteur.”
	My thoughts entirely.

Nick Raynsford: The statement from the United Nations not only reveals that Mrs Rolnik visited the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Homes and Community Agency and Manchester city council, but gives a statement of housing need in this country to which most serious commentators would wholly subscribe. Will the Secretary of State now stop his delusional approach to a scheme that cannot work because there is an inadequate supply of smaller accommodation for people to move into?

Iain Duncan Smith: It was the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who left office with the lowest level of house building since the 1920s—[Interruption.] It is higher now than it was under them—nearly 1.8 million on waiting lists in England and 250,000 tenants in overcrowded accommodation. The Opposition never talk about that. Never do we hear them say they were sorry for the overcrowded mess they left behind them. Instead of little gimmicks with people from Brazil, they would be better off apologising for the mess they left us in in the first place.

Julian Brazier: I commend my right hon. Friend’s robust approach. Does he agree that it cannot be part of any responsible welfare system to support people in accommodation of a size that they do not need when so many families have no proper accommodation at all?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also worth reminding the Opposition that they introduced a policy for social tenants in the private sector that does not allow housing benefit recipients to have spare rooms. So they are being hypocritical in saying that they are against one and in favour of the other.

Meg Hillier: How can the Secretary of State continue to defend the bedroom tax when there are not enough smaller properties for people to move into, even if it were the right thing to do?

Iain Duncan Smith: I keep reminding the Opposition—and this may be the real reason why they got in such a mess over the economy—that a subsidy is not a tax. They need to understand that a tax is something that the Government take away from people, but this is money that the taxpayers have given to people to subsidise them to have spare rooms. We simply cannot go on like that. I remind the hon. Lady that the Government she was a member of nearly doubled the housing benefit bill in the 10 years they were in power, and that is why we have to take action.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 4,000 people in Harlow on the council house waiting list, many of whom are not on benefits? Does he agree that the single room supplement will free up housing so that some of those people can get the housing that they rightly deserve?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. The coalition is concerned about people who have to live in overcrowded accommodation. Never do we hear one single comment from the welfare party about people living desperately in the overcrowded accommodation that they left them in.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State is so out of touch he is even out of touch with his own Minister, Lloyd Freud—[Hon. Members: “Lloyd?”] Lord Freud. It was a Freudian slip.
	Last week, Lord Freud admitted that there are not enough one-bedroom properties in this country. How would the Secretary of State describe a Government who tell the poorest in the land that they have to move into a one-bedroom property or pay a substantial penalty when they know that there are not enough one-bedroom properties? Is that perniciously cruel or utterly incompetent?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not closely associated with Lloyd George, but I am always ready to read what he has to say. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, but he is completely wrong. My noble Friend Lord Freud chastised housing associations and others for continuing to build houses that are not required when there is a demand for single bedroom accommodation.

Chris Bryant: He didn’t.

Iain Duncan Smith: He did. I know he said it, because I read it.

New Enterprise Allowance

Lorraine Fullbrook: What assessment he has made of the effect of the expansion of the new enterprise allowance on young entrepreneurs.

Stephen Mosley: What assessment he has made of the effect of the expansion of the new enterprise allowance on young entrepreneurs.

Iain Duncan Smith: The new enterprise allowance offers support for people of all ages who want to start a business—to date, more than 1,700 young people have done so. We now have an additional 60,000 mentoring places available, so many more will be helped in the future. This is a very successful programme.

Lorraine Fullbrook: My constituent Paul Williams recently received help from the new enterprise allowance to start up his business, Choc Amor. He has twice moved to larger premises, has recently opened a new tea room and now employs nine people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Paul Williams is a great example of why we should extend the scheme further, so that other hard-working people with drive and determination can get on in life, start a business and support our recovering economy?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The example she gives is one of many that prove the programme is working. The scheme was due to end in September 2013, but now, as a result of its success, referrals will extend to 2014. More than 54,000 have taken up the mentoring offer and there is an extra £35 million for an additional 60,000 mentoring places. I hope my hon. Friend, and all hon. Members, will ensure that many more people know about the scheme and have the same opportunity as her constituent.

Stephen Mosley: Last month, I organised a small business fair in Chester. We had the support of the local provider, Blue Orchid, which seems to be doing an excellent job of helping people to start businesses in Cheshire. There are a large number of providers across the country. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of their effectiveness?

Iain Duncan Smith: For the most part they provide a good service to all constituents and have been successful in all parts of the country. They operate within Jobcentre Plus districts and are monitored locally. If there are concerns, they are raised with the Jobcentre Plus. Their monthly management information flow gives us a very good overview of the scheme. In the north-west, my hon. Friend’s region, 8,000 have started working with a mentor and 4,420 have started claiming the weekly allowance—a big success.

Bill Esterson: Most businesses do not survive beyond the first year, and failing generally leaves their owners significantly out of pocket. Would it not be better to concentrate on boosting the economy to create jobs for young people, rather than recommending self-employment which, sadly, may make matters worse for the vast majority?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman cavil about this programme. The reality is that the two are not mutually exclusive. For those who have a good idea and want to start a business, the scheme provides an opportunity that otherwise would not be there. I remind him that approximately 1,800 18 to 24-year-olds, 18,000 25 to 49-year-olds, 6,000 aged 50-plus, who may well have had difficulty getting a job
	later on, and 4,800 with disabilities who would have been written off under the old scheme, have now started a business.

Kerry McCarthy: Will the Secretary of State look at the problems people are having in making the transition from jobseeker’s allowance to the new enterprise allowance regime, particularly with regard to housing benefit? A constituent, who is keen to set up his own business, came to see me the other day, but immediately found that his housing benefit had been stopped. He is of course still entitled to it in the early stages of claiming NEA.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue and I will definitely have it looked into immediately. It is meant to flow easily. If there is a misunderstanding, or people do not know what it is, we must take that on and ensure that they do.

Stephen Metcalfe: As Essex has a long and rich tradition of enterprise and entrepreneurial endeavour, I thank the Government for introducing the scheme to support the next generation of business leaders in Basildon and Thurrock. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many businesses have been started with the support of the allowance in Essex, preferably in south Essex?

Iain Duncan Smith: I will get back to my hon. Friend about the more specific details, if he wants. About 26,000 new businesses have started already and the target is to get 40,000 going by December 2013. There are about 2,000 start-ups every single month under this scheme. Out of the first 3,000 people on it, 85% are still off benefit a year later. That is a successful scheme.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members support this measure, but we are careful about ensuring that the quality of mentoring is good, that the evaluation of the likelihood of success be built on initiatives such as the new scheme of Hertfordshire university and that the scheme leads to long-term sustainable businesses?

Iain Duncan Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great deal of respect for him, and he is right that much depends on the quality of the mentoring; we are doing our level best to make sure that it is as good it could possibly be. If he has any suggestions about how to improve it further, the door is open and I am always happy to see him and discuss them with him. I would revisit any project he would like to nominate if he wanted us to look at any difficulties and I would consider looking at any improvements that might be worth making.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the extension of this excellent scheme to 2014. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Chancellor about extending it further, should it continue to be successful?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Chancellor and I of course discuss these matters quite regularly, and the reality is that he is very interested in this scheme. The truth is that a successful economy relies on new business start-ups.
	This plays exactly into the right arena. In comparison with competitors all over the world, new business start-ups and new businesses are providing the way for us to be successful. I am sure that the Chancellor will readily take my hon. Friend’s suggestions.

Atos Healthcare (Occupational Health Assessments)

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment he has made of the performance of Atos Healthcare in delivering occupational health assessments.

Michael Penning: In the last week, I have looked carefully at the key performance indicators for delivery times, which have been met or exceeded. In the last 12 months, they have gone from 93% to the contracted target of 97%.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Last year, my constituent Alan Johnson, a dedicated paramedic, was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. At 55 years of age, he was advised to retire early. Atos went on to ignore the advice of his GP and his specialist, refused him a medical and told him that he had not had the condition long enough to qualify, and then forced him to return to work. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this appalling case so that Mr Johnson can receive the pension he is due?

Michael Penning: Of course I will meet the hon. Lady, but there is an appeals process, and I suggest her constituent goes through that full process—in case he has not—before we meet, as we do not want jeopardise an appeal in any way. This was a problem we inherited from the previous Administration. Occupational health assessments were set up under Atos in 2008; it was not great, but we are working hard to sort it out.

Benefit Cap

Margot James: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the benefit cap in encouraging people back to work.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is my strong belief that there is a connection between what is happening with the benefit cap and getting people into work. The findings of polls we conducted show that of those notified or aware that they would be affected by the cap, three in 10 then took action to find work. To date, Jobcentre Plus has helped some 16,500 potentially capped claimants back into work.

Margot James: Some of the few families in my constituency affected by the benefit cap have particular issues in accessing employment. Does my right hon. Friend feel that the Work programme has the specialist knowledge required to deal with some of the difficulties that this group sometimes encounter in accessing employment?

Iain Duncan Smith: It does, which is the whole point of the Work programme—to get more individuals to involve themselves and to help such people find the right courses, the right application and then the right
	skilling. The Work programme is able to do that in a more intense way than Jobcentre Plus is, so it should provide enormous help. The reality is that the benefit cap is enormously popular, which may account for why the welfare party opposite has come and gone on this issue from the beginning. First, Labour Members say they are opposed to it; then they say they are for it: we have no idea what they will do about it.

Glenda Jackson: A new report by the New Policy Institute and Trust for London shows that 57% of working-age adults and children living in poverty in London are in households that work. That work is almost inevitably low paid and increasingly part time. Will the Secretary of State drop this mantra of making work pay and begin perhaps to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of encouraging a living wage?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am always very willing to discuss issues relating to the living wage with the hon. Lady or with anyone else. However, I hope that when the hon. Lady talks to her constituents she is honest enough to tell them that the reason they find themselves in so much difficulty is that the last Government made such a mess of the economy, and caused so many people to collapse into low incomes and very poor jobs. It was the Labour party that caused that. We are changing it, and restoring the previous position.

David Ruffley: The European Commission said this morning that more than 600,000 EU migrants live in this country without working. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could cap the benefits paid to those individuals by introducing a more stringent residence requirement, and by insisting that they have a longer social security contribution record?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have not read the report in any detail, but I do know that the 600,000 figure does not necessarily refer to people of working age who could be working. There is a big question mark over the number of people to whom it relates. I do not want to find myself in the middle of a debate between some of the media and the European Union, so let me simply say that our own assessment—our habitual residency test—currently prevents people who could be working and not on benefits from claiming those benefits. It is the Commission that is trying to get us to change that, and I am utterly refusing to do so.

Alex Cunningham: The unemployment rate in my constituency is nearly 9%. One mother whose benefits have been capped has little opportunity of getting a job, especially as she has several small children to look after. She is putting feeding and clothing them and paying bills ahead of paying her rent, so her landlord, Miguel Contreres, is receiving just £30 a week. Can the Secretary of State provide a fair alternative to the landlord’s throwing that mother and her children out on to the street?

Iain Duncan Smith: Can we please return to reality? [Interruption.] I love the fact that my new shadow, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—whom I welcome to her position—was out over the weekend
	saying “We are going to get really tough on benefits”, and at the first opportunity Labour Members are carping about the cap and the spare room subsidy. The truth is that the cap applies to people with average earnings. May I ask the hon. Gentleman what he might like to say to those who are trying and working hard, and who wonder why people on benefits are earning more than they are?

Child Support Agency

Bob Russell: How many individual cases were raised with the Child Support Agency by hon. Members in 2012.

Steve Webb: Out of 1.1 million cases registered with the Child Support Agency, hon. Members raised 7,540 with the agency. That is still too many, but I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 12% fewer letters were received in 2012 than in 2011.

Bob Russell: I think that that is a bit of an underestimate. The figure is certainly lower than I expected it to be, given that the hon. Member for Colchester has raised more than 1,000 cases in the past 16 years. Does the Minister agree that if a Member of Parliament is having to make representations to the CSA, those cases constitute failures?

Steve Webb: I do not have figures showing how many of the 7,000 or so letters came from my hon. Friend, but I suspect that a fair proportion of them did. However, he is right to say that matters should not have to reach the stage at which a Member of Parliament has to raise a case. We are reforming the CSA for that reason, and we believe that the new 2012 system will provide much better customer service.

Philip Davies: When dealing with CSA cases raised by constituents, one is left with the feeling that the CSA has strayed from its original remit, which was to chase absent fathers. It seems that the agency has filed that under “too difficult”, and is now pursuing people who are already paying in an attempt to extract more money from them. Can the Minister find a way of restoring the CSA’s original purpose, which was to chase absent fathers rather than hounding people who are already trying to do the right thing?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the thinking behind our reforms is to ensure that when families can sort things out for themselves, they do so. That will enable the CSA to pursue the remaining cases involving absent fathers—or mothers—much more vigorously, so that those who are refusing to pay feel the full force of our enforcement action.

Work Capability Assessments

Steve Brine: What steps he is taking to reduce waiting times for work capability assessments.

Michael Penning: The work capability process was introduced by the previous Labour Administration in 2008. We are
	committed to ensuring that work capability assessments are as fair and accurate as possible in determining who is fit to work and when they can return to work. The Department has instructed Atos to introduce a quality improvement plan, as was announced in this House by written statement.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister for that. Can he just confirm that nobody will be worse off as a result of the necessary push on quality that he has just mentioned and the slow-down it may cause for some of our constituents?

Michael Penning: No one will be worse off. Quality is very important, so as to ensure that when the assessments are done the first time, they are done accurately and do not have to go back on appeal. If there is an overpayment to someone because they are assessed at a lower rate, they will be able to keep that payment.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister’s predecessor, who is in his place, previously said from the Dispatch Box that one reason for the number of incorrect decisions was people not providing the right medical evidence. May I invite the new Minister to have a look at the wording of the ESA50 form? It states:
	“If you have any medical documents that you think will support your claim, send them in with your questionnaire. For example, this could be a medical report from your doctor, consultant or support worker.”
	It then says, immediately afterwards:
	“Please do not send medical statements”.
	It is little wonder there is confusion.

Michael Penning: In my first week, I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at that part of the form. I will do so, and if it needs amending I will do that.

Philip Hollobone: Will my hon. Friend undertake a work capability assessment on the Ministry of Justice, because the waiting time for appeal hearings for WCA claims is now up to 40 weeks in the Kettering area? That is completely unacceptable.

Michael Penning: I think we all accept that the delays are unacceptable. We need to ensure that the assessments are done correctly when they are first done, and the Department is working closely now to make sure that they are assessed before they get to the referral situation.

Eilidh Whiteford: The changes to the WCA appeals process that are due to come into effect later this month will put some very sick and disabled people in a dreadful position, whereby those who are clearly unfit for work and are appealing a bad decision by Atos will be unable to claim any replacement benefits for the duration of the reconsideration process because being able to work is a prerequisite for claiming jobseeker’s allowance. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that these changes will have on local authorities, housing associations and primary health care?

Michael Penning: As the Minister of State for disabled people—a brand new role, with not a junior Minister but a senior Minister—it is my role, across government
	and including local authorities, to make sure that the system is working. Where there are problems, I will look at them. I will be working closely with all the authorities that the hon. Lady has suggested, but I do not accept her premise as to how many of them will be worse off.

Former Remploy Workers

Rosie Cooper: How many former Remploy workers are now in employment.

Esther McVey: At 4 October 2013 1,326 disabled former Remploy workers are engaging with personal case workers to find jobs; 535 are in work, and 390 are on Work Choice and training, which makes a total of 925 in work or training.

Rosie Cooper: Notwithstanding that answer, more than 93% of disabled people on the Work programme are simply failing to find work. I put it to the Minister that the Government’s record on disability employment is simply a disgrace and is another example of the Government talking big and tough but failing to deliver.

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady has bounced across various subjects there, but may I just put on the record the fact that the Remploy factories had faced an uncertain future since 2008 and that her Government closed 29? We have sought to support the people involved in the best way possible, and so 925 out of the 1,325 are in work or training. We are talking about significant support and significant movement into work; the rate is higher than the one relating to regular redundancies. As I said before, the Work programme is working. It has significantly improved under my predecessor and we will continue that.

Paul Maynard: I welcome the information that the Minister has given about the role that Work Choice has played in helping former Remploy employees. Will she confirm that we have no plans, despite rumours I am hearing, to roll Work Choice up into the Work programme? Such an approach would lose the specialisation that has made Work Choice the success it has been so far.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. Work Choice has been a success. We are looking at the disability employment strategy. For the first time ever we are considering greater segmentation and greater differentiation, and the greater support that is needed. We have also engaged with business as never before. We have started a two-year disability confident programme, engaging with 430 businesses and 35 of the FTSE 100. We need employers to work with us to give these people jobs.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In the same way that the miners’ buy-out of Tower colliery succeeded in sustaining well-paid jobs and exposed the lie that every pit was uneconomic, does the reopening this week of the former Forestfach Remploy site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) with workers’ redundancy money give the lie to the need to shut so many viable Remploy factories, such as that in Bridgend,
	where the workers and management had both the business case and the burning desire to keep the factory open?

Esther McVey: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not really understand what happened with the whole set of Remploy factories. In 2008, the Labour party put in £555 million for a modernisation plan that failed. Those factories that can exist as viable businesses are doing so. We have helped them in that. We have supported them, and more than nine have reopened. Of those that could not, we have got some of the employees into work and others are opening up as social enterprises. The Opposition tried and failed. We are doing something about this and supporting those people.

Long-term Unemployed

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to get the long-term unemployed into work.

Esther McVey: From next April, those hardest to help jobseekers returning from the Work programme will get the intensive support they need to get a job. A third will sign on every day; a third will go on community work placements for six months; and a third will receive intensive support from Jobcentre Plus.

Dominic Raab: Research for the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that since 2010, the Government’s welfare reforms have already increased tax incentives to work and cut welfare disincentives by 6%. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue this recalibration of the system to end the dependency culture that the last Government left behind and ensure that hard work pays?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is spot-on. That is exactly what we said we would do—a recalibration; a rebalancing of the economy—to get more people into private enterprise and to make fewer people state dependent. We have done that with 1.4 million jobs in the private sector. Opposition Members said that it was not possible. This is down to an environment that we have set and the great British businesses that have provided this employment.

Lucy Powell: It is good to be back. The Minister will be aware that a key barrier to many long-term unemployed women returning to work is the prohibitively high cost of child care. What is she doing to ensure that work will always pay once universal credit is implemented, given the concerning findings of the Resolution Foundation published yesterday showing the opposite to be the case?

Esther McVey: I am very proud of our Government’s policies, which have got a record number of women into work and supported them into businesses and in setting up their own businesses. Of those in part-time work, 80% have chosen that work, some of which fits in with their life balance. We are supporting women with child care. That is a difficult job, especially as the price of child care went through the roof under Labour. We are particularly supporting them under universal credit, and, as I said, all credit to this Government.

Chloe Smith: I welcome the Minister to her place and encourage her to come to Norwich to see the steps that I and a really great team of volunteers are taking to get Norwich’s youth unemployment down. We call it Norwich for Jobs and we have already got literally hundreds of young people into work. Her predecessor had kindly agreed to visit the team; would she like to do the same?

Esther McVey: If it was good enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), it is good enough for me, and I will be there.

Debbie Abrahams: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has been rebuked not once but twice by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority for the misleading, if not false, claims that he is making about the welfare reform programme? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the House and to the public at large, not least to those on social security, whom the Government continue to denigrate?

Esther McVey: I will not be taking this moment to apologise, but I hope that those on the Labour Benches will apologise for the mess they left us, which we have corrected. Employment is up by 1 million since the election and unemployment is down by 400,000. Inactivity records are at an all-time low and the number of people not in employment, education or training is at the lowest rate for a decade. That is what we are doing, and the statistics we are putting out are correct. I am really disappointed that we cannot all celebrate the great work this Government have done.

Housing Benefit Changes (Scotland)

Katy Clark: What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s housing benefit changes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Esther McVey: All the Government’s housing benefit changes have been subject to full impact and equality impact assessments. We have closely monitored the implementation of the measures and commissioned independent evaluations of the local housing allowance reforms and the removal of the spare room subsidy.

Katy Clark: Alex Salmond is coming down from Edinburgh on Wednesday to ask the Prime Minister to scrap the bedroom tax, and the Scottish Labour party is putting a Bill before the Scottish Parliament to stop evictions and provide funding to councils and housing associations for discretionary housing payments. Does the Minister accept that in the meantime, councils and housing associations are under huge pressure to raise rents because of the massive rent arrears resulting from the introduction of the bedroom tax?

Esther McVey: What I will say is that we are putting in place support for those housing associations and local authorities that are finding that they cannot come to terms with the issue, although they have had three years to do something and have failed to do so. I would like to talk about the 1.8 million people on housing
	waiting lists and the 250,000 people in overcrowded accommodation, whom nobody had looked after. We are looking after everybody and supporting them as best we can with discretionary housing payments.

Sheila Gilmore: Tenants who are not on housing benefits and pensioners are now being affected by the bedroom tax, because councils such as mine are being forced to look at either rent rises or cutting their modernisation programmes because of the impact of the bedroom tax. Will the Minister now look at that again and stop this nonsense, which is not even saving money overall?

Esther McVey: There is one point to clarify: pensioners are exempt. If people could get the facts right, it would work better.

Pension Charges

Jesse Norman: What steps the Government are taking on pension charges.

Steve Webb: We have already banned consultancy charges in automatic enrolment schemes and, in the light of the recent report by the Office of Fair Trading, we will shortly be publishing a consultation setting out plans for a cap on pension scheme charges.

Jesse Norman: It is extremely difficult for pensioners, and indeed fund trustees, to obtain accurate and timely data about transaction costs, which can have an enormous impact on fund performance. Does the Minister share my view that managers of both private and public funds should be required to publish that information?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend highlights the important point that we need a great deal more transparency about the many different pension scheme charges—the OFT report identified 18 different sorts of charges. We will be looking at its recommendation that the fees he refers to should be reported to governance committees, which will be best placed to act upon them.

Gregg McClymont: It was the Leader of the Opposition who led the way in exposing the pension charges rip-off, only for the Minister to respond—I have the press cutting to hand—by accusing Labour 15 months ago of scaremongering. Now that the OFT has published its damning report, does he not accept that Labour was right all along and that pension charges must be tackled in a serious and timely fashion?

Steve Webb: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on keeping his post in the Labour reshuffle, which I understand was codenamed the Blair Ditch project? He says that we need to cap pension scheme charges. What I do not understand is why they were not capped at any point when Labour was in office. Why has it decided to cap them only now? The OFT did not recommend a cap on pension scheme charges. I am sure he was disappointed when he read its report, because he thought that it would. That is why we are now consulting and gathering evidence. We will act where the previous Government did not.

Departmental Programmes (Performance)

Fiona O'Donnell: What plans he has to improve the performance of his Department’s programmes referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his spending review statement on 26 June 2013.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am cutting the running costs of my Department from what I inherited from the last Government of £9 billion in 2009-10 to less than £6 billion by the end of this Parliament. What is more, by 2016-17 spending on out-of-work benefits will be back at 2008-09 levels. Working with the Treasury, we are always looking to drive down costs further still, and we will make further announcements.

Fiona O'Donnell: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called in his spending review statement for a hard-hearted assessment of underperforming programmes in the DWP. Does the Secretary of State accept this review, and what steps is he taking to tackle underperformance in his Department?

Iain Duncan Smith: The No. 1 thing we could do was to get rid of Labour—a great move to get more performance and not underperformance, and judging by the performance of its Front-Bench team, that is one of the areas where we ought to start straight away—but I must say to the hon. Lady that we are driving costs down and making savings in every programme. I would love to know this: out of the £80 billion plus we will save as a result of our welfare changes, which the Chancellor welcomes, which ones does she welcome?

Frank Field: How many permanent secretaries does the Secretary of State think he will get through before universal credit is rolled out nationally?

Iain Duncan Smith: Universal credit will roll out very well and it will be on time and within budget. We should consider the reality of the record of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government on Departments and the mess they got into. They left us with IT blunders of over £26 billion. With respect to him, as he was not always involved, but the others were, I therefore think they should apologise first.

Personal Independence Payment

Diana Johnson: What discussions he has had with Motability on the changes from disability living allowance to personal independence payment.

Michael Penning: DWP Ministers have regularly met the management of Motability to ensure that they are well placed to manage the introduction of personal independence payments and are able to effectively support their customers through this transitional period.

Diana Johnson: There are 3,200 people in Hull who have a vehicle under the Motability scheme. What assessment has the Minister made of the number who will lose their vehicle under the new PIP criteria?

Michael Penning: We are working very closely with Motability, and if someone does lose their Motability vehicle and they were in the scheme prior to January 2013 there will be a £2,000 lump sum to help. I must say to the hon. Lady that only 30% of people on the higher rate take Motability, but we will work very closely to ensure those who deserve it continue to get it.

Topical Questions

Paul Blomfield: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today I welcomed the national roll-out of the claimant commitment across around 100 jobcentres a month from now, mirroring a contract of employment. These contracts are about a cultural shift making it easier for claimants to understand what they must do in return for benefits and that they are in work now to find work. During the pathfinder both claimants and staff have found this helps enormously in focusing people on their requirements and the consequences if they do not meet them. This now marks the next stage of delivery.

Paul Blomfield: One of my constituents who is still without a job after his involvement in the Work programme came to one of the public consultation meetings I organised during the recess because he was angered by his experience of the programme. Bright and articulate with a postgraduate degree from Oxford, he had been sent on an eight-week employability course that included the completion of questions by ticking boxes with smiley faces or sad faces. Does the Secretary of State understand why he and others on the course angrily felt it was a waste of time, and does his experience explain why the Work programme has failed the overwhelming majority of people who have been sent on it?

Iain Duncan Smith: I just do not agree with that because the reality is that the Work programme figures show that it is performing incredibly well and it will just get better: some 72% of the first tranche or cohort are off benefits; 380,000 people who before were written off by the last Government are now in work; 168,000 are now in sustained employment; and we now know that 90% of those who are in sustained employment go on to another year at least of employment, which is better than any of the last Government’s programmes—cheaper, more effective and better for those trying to get into work.

Andrew Stephenson: As this month marks the first anniversary of automatic enrolment, will the Minister update the House on progress so far?

Steve Webb: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, it has been a year since the first firm automatically enrolled. This has been a striking success. Over 1.5 million employees have been automatically enrolled and the staying-in rates have been far higher, with over 90% of employees who have been placed in a workplace pension remaining in it. It is a superb start and I congratulate all those who played a part in it.

Rachel Reeves: Labour Members support the principle of universal credit, but we have repeatedly raised concerns about the Secretary of State’s ability to deliver it. Since 2011 he has consistently promised that 1 million people will be claiming universal credit by April 2014. Will he now tell the House how many people he expects actually to be claiming universal credit by then, and whether he will proceed with the previously announced plans to close down new claims for tax credits by that date?

Iain Duncan Smith: May I start by welcoming the hon. Lady to her position? As I told the Committee and have said consistently, universal credit will be rolled out within the time scales we set, and we are planning very clearly to enrol as many people in it as possible. This will be a success. As she says she is favour of universal credit, perhaps she can explain why Labour Members voted against it at the start and continue to do so.

Rachel Reeves: Despite what the Secretary of State says, the truth is that by April next year it will be possible to claim universal credit at just 10 jobcentres out of a total of 772. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office says that £34 million has already had to be written off, £303 million is now at risk, and Ministers have failed to set out how the policy will work. It is a catalogue of errors. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much money spent on the project will be money down the drain? Instead of blaming everybody but himself, would it not be better for him to turn down the volume on off-the-record briefings against his own permanent secretary and start taking responsibility for his own failed policy?

Iain Duncan Smith: Just in case the hon. Lady does not realise it, I should point out that this is not a failed policy: it will roll out successfully on time and within budget. Where does the word “failure” apply to that? She is part of a party whose time in office saw more than £28 billion wasted on IT programmes, with complete chaos most of the time it was there. This will roll out on time and within budget. At any time when we announce the new reset, she can, if she would like, come and talk to us about it. Perhaps for once, instead of voting against stuff and then saying she supports it, she might tell us how many of the benefit cuts Labour Members voted against they are now in favour of.

David Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Southend West has fallen by 12% in the past year? Will he join me in congratulating everyone on this very encouraging trend?

Esther McVey: I will indeed do that. Although my hon. Friend talks about an average of 14% fewer people claiming in his constituency, across the country the average is 11%, and 400,000 fewer people are claiming since 2010, so it is success all round for this Government.

Julie Hilling: With well over 1 million unemployment benefit claimants being sanctioned since 2010, rumours abounding that targets are in place for sanctioning, and all of us facing
	many desperate people in our surgeries, will the Secretary of State tell us when we will see the results of his investigation into sanctioning?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is obvious and clear that Labour Members do not support sanctioning. The reality is that they spend their whole time saying that they are in favour of benefit changes and at every single turn they oppose them. People who deserve sanctions deserve sanctions, and we impose them on those who do not play a part in the system.

Julian Huppert: People with autism and mental health problems have particular problems with the work capability assessment, and the courts recently found that the test put people with mental health problems at a substantial disadvantage. Will the Minister or the Secretary of State rethink the work capability assessment for those people and pause the process, for which Rethink Mental Illness called?

Michael Penning: I have looked at this very closely in the past week. Of course, lots of groups would want us to look at individual cases. The way the assessment is done is not rigid, and it will evolve. We will look at this carefully, but I cannot make promises on individual groups today.

Andy Sawford: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether benefits officers been have told not to sanction people when the only job offered is on a zero-hours contract? Do Ministers recognise that the new claimant commitments mean that people will not actually be able to sign zero-hours contracts without risking losing their in-work benefits?

Iain Duncan Smith: The claimant commitment is about people’s obligations under the existing terms. They will have to seek work, attend interviews and try to get a job, and once they are offered a job they must take it. Those are the sanctions coming up under universal credit. People will lose benefits for three months for a first offence, six months for a second offence and three years for a third offence. Right now, zero-hours contracts are legal. If Labour wants to change the law, we want to hear that from the hon. Gentleman.

Henry Smith: Will the Secretary of State update the House on the innovation fund and how it is helping separated families?

Steve Webb: This is money designed to help and support separated families. We have spent £6.5 million so far on seven projects in the voluntary and private sector designed to help with things such as mediation. Although it is early days, we have anecdotal examples whereby we have enabled families to function together for the benefit of the child, and whereby the child’s performance at school is improving as well as maintenance flowing.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Housing associations in Ogmore are carrying a rising level of debt on their balance sheets as a result of rent arrears. They have a desperate scarcity of one and two-bedroom properties to rent, and yet they have
	three-bedroom properties lying empty. Is this just a necessary but painful adjustment to the Secretary of State’s benefit and bedroom tax changes?

Esther McVey: This is something we have to do. I have answered this before: how many people we have to look at who are on waiting lists, how many are in overcrowded housing, and how the bill doubled under Labour. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—we have to get the stock right: the fact that there are three-bedroom houses and why in the last three years they have not been modified into one and two-bedroom houses. Those questions have to be asked. That is what we have to do: get the stock right and support people as best we can.

David Mowat: The pensions Minister mentioned earlier that the Office of Fair Trading report highlighted some of the abusive practices in the private pensions industry, such as active member discount and charges of up to 3% on many schemes. I welcome his consultation, but does he agree that it will be important to put a cap in place before auto-enrolment is rolled out at volume?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend raises the crucial issue that, while the largest firms have been able to negotiate very good charging levels, we cannot be certain that the smaller firms will even be offered them or, indeed, that employers will necessarily be interested in charging levels when it is the employees, rather than the employers, who pay them. Our consultation will touch on that issue and on that of active member discounts.

Kerry McCarthy: The Government continue to disregard warnings from the likes of Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty that many of the 500,000 people being forced to use food banks are doing so because of delayed, reduced or withdrawn benefits. The Department seems not to be interested in collecting any statistics behind the reasons for that referral. Will the Secretary of State look into this to see what impact his benefit changes are having on people who simply cannot afford to feed themselves?

Iain Duncan Smith: We do spend our time looking carefully to see whether the effects of our policies are negative on some families and how we can best support them. We have localised to local authorities the support for things such as crisis loans. Local authorities are now much better at focusing on what people really need. Our general view is that there are people in some difficulty, but lots of people are taking some of this food because it is available and it makes sense to do so. We are working with local authorities to ensure that those in real need get support.

Mike Freer: What estimate has been made of the annual number of surviving civil partners who qualify for widow and widower pensions?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend knows, our data on the pension rights of people in civil partnerships are very patchy, but I can tell him that, in response to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, we have committed to a statutory review. We are gathering data as we speak and we will report back on our proposals by next July.

Diana Johnson: Given the woeful performance of the Work programme in Hull and local job losses, does the Secretary of State agree with The Economist that Hull’s long-term jobseekers should give up looking for jobs in Hull and travel elsewhere in the country?

Esther McVey: I would never put out a message that people should not look for work, because work is vital to self-esteem, motivation and supporting one’s family, so I totally disagree with that statement.

Greg Mulholland: The roll-out of universal credit will be complete by 2017, yet the contract for the Post Office card account will be up for renewal in 18 months. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that people will still be able to access their benefits through their post offices?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have looked at this matter carefully. The Post Office contract is due to expire in 2015, but there is the option to extend it and we will keep the matter under review. The Post Office is piloting a new current account and we hope that many people will transfer on to that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that those who are in the circumstances that he describes will always be properly supported.

Ian Austin: Every single week, constituents tell me that Atos claims that it has not received the forms that they have completed. Last week, a young disabled constituent told me that that had happened on several occasions, leaving him penniless for weeks at a time. Why can the Secretary of State not sort this shambles out?

Michael Penning: The personal circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described are completely unacceptable. If he gives me the details of the case, I will look at it. The performance of Atos is ever so important and it was an issue for the previous Administration. We are working on it, but those circumstances are not acceptable and I will look at the matter.

Graham Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that since the benefit cap was introduced, his Department has helped more than 16,000 people who would have been affected by it into work? Does that not show that those who voted against the benefit cap cannot be trusted on welfare reform?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right that the benefit cap is popular and effective. Although the new shadow Secretary of State said that Labour would be tougher on welfare, we have all noticed throughout questions that the only thing we have heard from Labour is opposition to every single spending reduction and welfare reform. That party is not fit for government.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has been looking doleful for much of questions. I shall do my best to rescue her from her misery.

Caroline Lucas: I am entirely grateful, Mr Speaker, but my dolefulness has more to do with the responses from the Government than with my not catching your eye.
	The Government’s main reason for denying women born between 1951 and 1953 the option of receiving the single-tier pension if that means a higher weekly income appears to be the uncertainty about when their husbands will die. That is irrelevant for single, unmarried female pensioners—the poorest of all groups in retirement—who know that they would be better off with a choice. Will the Minister reconsider his policy so that the Government can help my constituents and others like them?

Steve Webb: To be clear, we have made one change to the pension position of the women to whom the hon. Lady refers: we have improved the indexation of their pensions by introducing the triple lock. I make no apology for that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, to whose mellifluous tones I could happily listen all afternoon, but we must move on to the statement.

Secondary Schools (Accountability)

David Laws: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of secondary school accountability, following our recent consultation. May I first welcome the new shadow Secretary of State for Education and express our best wishes to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), with whom we always had a very constructive relationship?
	Until now, secondary schools have been judged by the proportion of their pupils who are awarded five GCSEs at grade C or better, including in English and maths. Schools currently improve their league table position if pupils move over the C/D borderline. That gives schools a huge incentive to focus excessively on the small number of pupils around the five Cs borderline. In our view, that is unfair to pupils with the potential to move from E grades to D grades or from B grades to A grades. It is also, paradoxically, unfair to those on the C/D borderline because it leads schools to teach to the test. Ofqual, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and others have warned about those adverse incentives.
	Indeed, all five of the maths organisations that responded to the consultation said that the current approach harmed the teaching of mathematics. The Association of Teachers of Mathematics said:
	“Teaching to the test…results in superficial skills development which means that students are ill prepared for adult life”.
	Furthermore, as Chris Paterson at CentreForum has shown, the current accountability framework discourages schools from focusing on the lowest-attaining pupils. In a recently published book, “The Tail”, the authors argue that the past 15 years have seen rises in average attainment in our schools, but not in the attainment of those at the bottom. International surveys such as the trends in international mathematics and science study confirm that position. We need a secondary school accountability system that gives more attention to pupils who are falling behind.
	The current measure also permits many schools, particularly in affluent areas, to coast. Those schools find it easy to hit targets based only on five C grades. Although those schools may look successful, C grades are not a measure of success if pupils are actually capable of achieving far more. The accountability system must set challenging but fair expectations for every school, whatever its intake.
	The five A* to C grades measure also encourages schools to offer a narrow curriculum. Mastery of just five subjects is not enough for most pupils at age 16. Furthermore, the use of equivalent qualifications means that some students have not been offered a rigorous academic curriculum, which would have served them well. Until this year, a school could offer English, maths and only one BTEC and still have the pupil count as having achieved five Cs or better.
	We believe that the system can do much better than that, so we will require all schools to publish core information on their website in a standard format. From now on, there will be four key measures that must be published. The first is pupils’ progress across eight subjects, so a parent will see whether pupils at a school
	typically achieve one grade higher than expected or one grade lower. The second is the average grade that a pupil achieves in those same best eight subjects. That will show, for example, that pupils in a particular school average a high B grade or a low D grade in their GCSEs. The third is the percentage of pupils achieving a C grade in English and maths. The fourth is the proportion of pupils gaining the EBacc, which will continue in its current form. We will also look at developing a destination measure to show the percentage of pupils in any school who move on to further study or employment, including further training.
	We are proposing an important change to how we measure underperformance, and to our floor targets. Rather than the five A* to C GCSEs threshold measure, we will use the new progress measure for the floor targets. That will be much fairer, because it will take into account a school’s intake. A pupil’s key stage 2 results, achieved at the end of primary school, will be used to set a reasonable expectation of what they should achieve at GCSE, and schools will get credit when pupils outperform those expectations. A child who gets an A when they were expected to get a B, or a D when they were expected to get an E, will effectively score points for their school. That approach will ensure that all pupils matter, and matter equally. It will be fairer for schools and fairer for pupils.
	Coasting schools will no longer be let off the hook. Equally, head teachers will no longer feel penalised when they have actually performed well with a challenging intake. We must not deter the best head teachers and teachers from working in challenging schools.
	Pupils’ progress and attainment will be assessed in eight subjects: English and maths, three further EBacc subjects and three other high-value qualifications. That final group can include further traditional academic subjects such as art, music and drama, and vocational subjects such as engineering and business. English and maths will be double-weighted to reflect their importance. That will encourage schools to offer all pupils a broad curriculum, but with a strong academic core.
	We will define the new floor standard as progress half a grade lower than reasonable expectations. So if pupils at a school are expected to average a B in their eight subjects, the school will be below the floor if they average less than four Bs and four Cs. At present, there are 195 schools below the existing floor standard. Using existing figures, we estimate that about twice as many schools would be below the new floor standard. However, as schools will adjust their curriculum offer to the new framework, the actual number is likely to be significantly lower.
	We also want to recognise schools in which pupils make exceptional progress. Therefore, a school in which pupils average a full grade above reasonable expectations will not be inspected by Ofsted the following year. This is the first time the accountability regime has offered schools a carrot as well as a stick. Schools have planned their current curriculum for years 10 and 11 on the basis of the existing accountability system, so for that reason, the new system will begin in 2016 for students currently in year 9. We will, however, allow schools to opt into the new system from 2015 if they wish.
	The Government response to the consultation also describes how we will publish information we hold about secondary schools through a new data portal. That builds on our existing performance tables, and will
	allow all interested groups—governors, parents, academics and civil society more widely—to analyse aspects of school performance. Our full response to the consultation is available on the Department for Education’s website, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.
	Through these changes, we are removing the perverse incentives for schools to act in a way that is not in the best interests of their pupils. More pupils will get the teaching they require and obtain the valuable qualifications they need. The proposals will have a major and positive effect on our education system, and we hope they will secure support from across the political spectrum.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for his kind words for the shadow Secretary of State and the former shadow Secretary of State, which he gave in his usual courteous way at the beginning of his statement. I also thank him for advance sight of the statement. Labour will study closely the details of the changes he proposes, and if it transpires that they will incentivise rich, broad and balanced curricula in our schools, we will welcome them. There are, however, some important tests that the changes must pass.
	Anyone watching last week’s “Educating Yorkshire” will have seen the extraordinary efforts that teachers go to—sometimes including risking their health—to help pupils pass their GCSEs. It is sad that these days that is sometimes known in Government as “gaming the system”. How will the Minister ensure that the new arrangements will allow teachers to help pupils of all abilities to achieve their best, and can he be sure that they will not throw up their own new perverse incentives?
	The Labour party, backed by the CBI, is committed to ensuring that all young people continue to study maths and English to 18, although so far the Government have failed to support Labour’s plan. Will the Minister think again about that? As the participation age rises to 18, and with challenges for us all in the OECD report, does he not want all young people to continue studying maths and English to 18? We also need more detail about how the changes will impact on technical and vocational education which, once again, seems to be a bit of an afterthought. He referred to progression post-16, but why are the Government watering down the important requirement on schools to ensure that young people are ready for the world of work, through the provision of work experience and independent careers advice and guidance?
	The central problem with the announcement is that parents, pupils and teachers no longer trust the Government not to tinker. When it comes to accountability measures, the Government behave a little like the badgers, moving the goalposts halfway through the school year. Will the Minister guarantee that the proposal will not be subject to the mood swings of the Secretary of State and his infamous friend Dominic Cummings? Parents, pupils, teachers and head teachers are livid about the latest knee-jerk announcement via the press, when pupils are already preparing for exams and only days away from the deadline for exam entry, that only first entry into GCSE can be counted in the school accountability measure. If the badgers are moving the goalposts, Ministers are changing the rules in the middle of the match. Will the Minister promise to meet with heads to discuss their concerns about this change being implemented in such a way?
	Will this change to the accountability system make any real difference to children if their schools are vulnerable to—I quote the Secretary of State’s special adviser— “disastrous teaching” and “fraudulent activity”? That is the view of Dominic Cummings, who says that it is inevitable, because of the lack of grip the Secretary of State has on his free schools policy, that some will fail for those reasons. That is what he said.
	We are already seeing the fruit of that failure in the scandal at Al-Madinah school in Derby, which left 400 children without schooling for an entire week and whose approach to women staff and female students has caused such controversy. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure that school accountability extends beyond today’s measure and includes ensuring that all taxpayer-funded schools have qualified teaching staff, are monitored for financial fraud, have proper child protection measures in place and are adhering to basic British values of tolerance and respect for all, regardless of gender, sexuality or religious belief?

David Laws: I think I welcome the shadow Minister’s response to our statement. By the end of it, it was difficult to know whether he was supporting the statement or not. We will come to that in a moment. I think I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s relatively cautious approach because, from him, I take that as a sign of support, whereas from other people it might qualify as anything other than that.
	I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have taken time to get this right. Nobody can accuse us of rushing into the proposals. After all, we announced a consultation in this area in February. We have taken a great deal of time to get our proposals right. We have listened very carefully, including to the Chairman of the Select Committee, to a lot of the mathematics, to organisations that made representations, and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a consequence, the Secretary of State and I have changed the proposals that we first made. We have moved away from a threshold measure to a greater extent than was originally planned, precisely because of the perverse incentive effects that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and we think we have now got the balance right between having a proper accountability system and ensuring that that system embeds the right incentives. By having a number of key measures, we will ensure that it is not possible to game one of those and ignore all the other things that matter.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to encourage young people who have not mastered maths and English at 16 to go on studying those subjects, and we have announced a new core maths qualification beyond the age of 16 to ensure that young people have the opportunity to do that. We have also, through our 16-to-19 accountability consultation, paid a great deal of attention to the incentives that educational institutions will have to keep young people on course after the age of 16 and to create the right incentives. The destination measure that I have talked about today will give all educational institutions an interest in the qualifications that young people secure not only at age 16, but beyond that.
	On the issue of early entries for GCSEs, I do understand that this has been controversial, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that we must pay attention to the serious warnings that we have received from Ofsted and others about the scale of increase of early entry. This summer almost a quarter of maths entries—170,000 entries
	—were from young people who were not at the end of key stage 4 study. Ofsted said that it found no evidence that such approaches on their own served the best interests of students in the long term. Indeed, Sir Michael Wilshaw has said that he thinks early entry hurts the chances of some children, who are not able to go on to get the best grades that they are capable of.
	On future uncertainty about these frameworks, we hope very much indeed that we will be able to secure support from across the House for the proposals that we have made today, and I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as a modest step in that direction. However, in terms of getting certainty about the degree of cross-party co-operation, it would be helpful if he could clarify some of divisions that there are now on his own side about some of the key issues. For example, one of the measures that we have said we would publish is the EBacc, and we believe we should continue to do so. The former education spokesman for the Labour party opposed the EBacc and said that it was at best an irrelevance and in some cases distorted young people’s choices. The new spokesman for the Labour party said that he supports the English baccalaureate. We want to hear from the Opposition some clarity about Labour’s position on these issues; otherwise, that will be a source of confusion.

Graham Stuart: This announcement is extremely welcome, as the best eight measure will be an educational breakthrough in improving the accountability of secondary schools by, as the Minister rightly said, ensuring a focus on improving the education of the lowest-achieving, as well as stretching those at the top. It is to the credit of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools that they have listened to the submissions, that they have been prepared to take their time and that they have got this right. How will the floor target work? It is rightly based on progression, but how will it ensure that progression is fairly measured between those who serve the more able and typically prosperous parts of the population and those in the most deprived areas?

David Laws: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for his kind comments about the proposals we have announced today. I am happy to pay tribute to him for the role he has played in ensuring the improvement of the proposals between the original announcement and consultation in February and today, when the final proposals were made. He is right that the new progress measure will ensure that the attention and focus is not only, as it was in the past, on the schools with the lowest levels of attainment, but on schools that appear to have high levels of attainment but where levels of progress are extremely low. Schools have been able to coast over the past decade because their overall levels of attainment look all right, when they have actually been failing young people by not getting much better results from them.

Barry Sheerman: This is probably the best statement I have heard from a Minister since 2010, when the Government were formed. It is not all perfect, but the Government have listened and have modified the proposals. They should be congratulated on that. If they listened to last week’s
	debate on adult literacy and numeracy, will they take the lesson that the one area in which we still underachieve is the failure of at least 25% of our young people coming through education to get almost any qualification at 16? That is where the concentration must be and we need action soon.

David Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the former Chair of the Select Committee, for his kind comments. He is absolutely right that one of the big challenges we must address in education is the very large number of young people who are not getting through GCSEs with decent qualifications in English and maths. Shockingly, at the moment the overwhelming majority of those young people continue to fail beyond the age of 16. Many do not even attempt to retake those subjects to get that basic level of literacy and numeracy, and we must address that.

Stewart Jackson: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. It is clear that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling underachievement among children from poorer backgrounds. Will he undertake not to lose sight of the importance of English as an additional language as a factor in educational attainment? Will he look at the subject in the round when going forward with these welcome education reforms?

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend and there will still, of course, be an incentive through the EBacc system to encourage modern languages. The funding system for schools will still make finance available to help schools with those challenges.

Meg Munn: Many schools in and around Sheffield no longer offer three separate science subjects at GCSE, which is blocking young people from being able to go on to careers in engineering and other related subjects. Given the changes that have been announced, how does the Minister see things developing? In particular, will he support the development of separate sciences so that young people go into such areas, where we have skills shortages?

David Laws: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Sadly, over the past decade or so there was a movement by students away from taking serious single-science subjects towards broader subjects that sometimes had an unrealistic equivalence. I am pleased to say that since the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in that area, we have seen a big increase in students taking some of those subjects at GCSE and A-level. We need to ensure that the number goes up even further in the future.

Edward Leigh: What discussions has the Minister had with the private sector? Is there not a danger that in moving to a progress measure we are moving from absolute standards to relative standards because we are taking account of where people come from as opposed to where they are? Parents want a measure of how good a school is now and the rigid academic standards it is achieving, and nothing else.

David Laws: We have had a broad welcome to the proposals in the consultation and the statement, including from many employer organisations, but my hon. Friend
	is right to highlight that, ultimately, results and attainment are crucial to any young person doing well in future. I believe that, through the best eight measure—an average we will publish as part of the new accountability framework —we will send out the clearest signal ever about how a school is performing in a large range of subjects and for every single student in the school. I believe that that will improve the focus on attainment in every school in the country.

David Lammy: I congratulate the Minister on his announcement. I particularly welcome the destinations measure, which I argued for as a Minister —I was not successful in persuading the Department to do it. How will it affect schools that go up to age 16, as opposed to schools that go up to age 18, which often place a greater emphasis on universities, including Russell group universities?

David Laws: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. We would expect such a measure to apply both to schools that go up to age 16 and to those that go up to age 18. Looking at what happens to people afterwards is relevant in giving both a powerful incentive. Clearly, the pathway in each situation would, for many students, be slightly different, but we believe that taking an interest in what students go on to do beyond age 16 makes sense in giving a powerful incentive to the many schools in the country that go up to age 16.

Tim Farron: I very much welcome the proposals on increasing the reward for schools that add attainment for all pupils, irrespective of their backgrounds, and the proposals on adding value and support for schools that seek to boost attainment for all pupils, and not just those on the key dividing lines between specific grade boundaries. I am also happy to hear the Minister’s reference to having more carrots than sticks. In that sense, could we offer more carrots than sticks to the teaching profession with reference to Ofsted? Few Ofsted inspectors are currently teachers. Could Ofsted become more supportive and developmental rather than, say, threatening and limiting?

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that we need to guarantee confidence in the schools system about the job Ofsted does. I believe that, on the whole, it does an excellent job. He will be interested to know that, since the new chief inspector took over at Ofsted a couple of years ago, he has very significantly increased not only the number of former head teachers who work for it, but the number of existing senior school staff who act as Ofsted inspectors. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend to update him on that information, because there has been a radical change in a short period.

Gisela Stuart: I wish the Minister well in developing his destination measures, particularly on employment. If he wants to know how schools can prepare, I invite him to come to Birmingham to see how the Birmingham baccalaureate brings the world of work and schools together. That might give him a pathway to copy elsewhere.

David Laws: I would be delighted to come to Birmingham.

David Nuttall: Following that same point, in warmly welcoming the Minister’s statement, I urge him to accelerate the inclusion of a destination measure as an assessment criterion. What really matters is how a school prepares its pupils to succeed either in further education or in finding a job.

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend that the destination measure is extremely important. I assure him that we will act swiftly to seek to introduce the measure. Getting the data to the standard at which they are accurate and useful, which is crucial because we want an accountability measure that is taken seriously by schools, is important as the first step. However, as soon as we do it, we will move towards publishing the measure.

Toby Perkins: Brookfield school in Chesterfield recently wrote to all parents to let them know that year 11 pupils whom the school believes might not get a C will not do maths until May or June, whereas previously they would have done it in November. Alongside schools accountability, is the Minister concerned that one impact could be that children on the borderline might not have the same chance that children higher up have, because the children who are higher up have the chance to do it in November and do it again in May if they are not happy with their original result? Is there a danger that schools will change the way in which they operate to the disadvantage of some pupils?

David Laws: We were concerned by what was happening in increasing numbers in some schools before the announcement was made. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the massive expansion in the last couple of years in the number of students doing multiple GSCE entries—170,000 in summer 2013. Almost a quarter of maths entries were multiple entries from students who had not reached the end of key stage 4. Several bodies have expressed concern that some of the youngsters might get a C when they could go on to get a B, an A or an A*, and they are potentially being let down. It also means that teaching in those subjects ends at a much earlier stage than it should, with a year only of preparation in the subject rather than the full two years. It is crucial that we have a school system that acts in the best interests of the students, not simply of the schools.

Nick de Bois: Employers will tell the Minister that it did not need an OECD report to show that England has—shockingly—some of the least literate students, because they only have to look at job applications to see that. Will he ensure that his system will have widespread effect, especially on literacy and numeracy, as opposed to focusing on a few?

David Laws: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The new system will reduce the amount of gaming behaviour across the C/D borderline and the amount of teaching for the test, which often distorts our appreciation of educational standards, and all of the changes go hand in glove with the further changes to GCSEs that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this year, which will try to ensure that GSCEs in English, maths and other subjects are fit for
	purpose and will ensure that young people in this country are as well prepared as those in other top education countries.

Julie Hilling: The Minister’s announcement on early entry—made to the media, it has to be said, not to the House—has created huge anger and great disruption to pupils and schools in my constituency. Did he talk to head teachers about why they do early entry, and will he commit to giving longer notice periods and to stop announcing changes that have immediate detrimental effects on pupils in the middle of their courses and exam preparation?

David Laws: I do not think we can be accused of leaping too rapidly to conclusions when we have just completed an eight-month consultation process on the changes that we are discussing today. It would be negligent of us to stand back and ignore the recommendations being made by Ofsted and others, and the dramatic figures that we have seen in the past year or so, which suggest that a vast amount of money is being sunk into exam fees rather than into teaching—behaviour that is not potentially in the best interests of some of the most disadvantaged youngsters. We have spoken to many head teachers and head teachers’ bodies about this. The timing has been controversial, but many head teachers have told us that there were problems and abuses in this area and that these changes are sensible,

Guy Opperman: The Minister visited Hexham schools this summer, for which I am grateful. He will know that they are outstanding and that they will welcome these accountability reforms, including the destination measures that he outlined. Could he give the House a little more explanation of how, through over-achievement, a school can avoid the next year’s Ofsted inspection?

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for arranging the visit to his constituency some months ago. I very much enjoyed visiting a couple of schools in his part of the country. Those schools that achieve a particularly high level of progress—one grade more than expected—will have that exemption from Ofsted inspection, and that will send out a clear signal to those schools that we are rewarding the extraordinary progress that they are making.

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure the Minister is an avid reader of “ConservativeHome”, so he will have seen the blog post by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) in August in which he talked about
	“a new social divide in subject choices.”
	He said that pupils from state schools, in particular pupils on free school meals, often went for the softer options. Will the Minister confirm what I think he said in his statement: that arts and vocational subjects are considered high value, and that performance and attainment in those subjects will be rewarded?

David Laws: Yes, I certainly can. In the best eight measure there will be three spaces reserved for subjects that can include arts, music, and vocational and other
	subjects. One of the great benefits of today’s announcement is that there will not be the pressure on schools, which was there in the past, to focus only on five GCSE subjects. For many students that created far too narrow a curriculum at the age of 16.

Alun Cairns: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which will help parents to make an informed judgment when exercising choice for their children’s education. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the progress from the outcomes of key stage 2 to expectations at key stage 3. What consideration has he given to consistency across different educational institutions?

David Laws: We want to see consistency right across educational institutions. The changes we have announced today will create much better consistency in accountability measures, and will not focus only on those institutions with lower attainment and lower prior achievement. This will be a fairer way of judging every single educational institution in the country.

Bill Esterson: The issue of multiple exam entries—in particular in maths—has been raised with me by a number of constituents. In September, pupils were told that they would be entered for an exam in November. A few days later, as a result of the Government’s announcement, schools had to make the decision that that would not be right because of the impact it would have on league tables. Would it not be better to consider the impact on students—given the very high numbers involved, which the Minister has mentioned a couple of times—rather than timing the announcement for party conference season?

David Laws: This announcement was not timed for the party conference season; it was timed on the basis of the evidence available to us. If schools believe that young people should be entered in November, they are perfectly at liberty to do that—we have done nothing to stop them. Indeed, if they are confident that students will be able to secure their best grades at that time, they should put the students in for the exam. If, however, the students will achieve only a C grade when they could have achieved a B or an A later, schools should think twice.

Graham Evans: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. As the father of three children in a state school, I have always been frustrated by the smoke and mirrors used by some state schools. Does the Minister agree in exposing coasting schools, rather than rewarding them like the previous Labour Government did?

David Laws: This information will expose coasting schools. It will also expose any school that has been focusing its curriculum offer in a narrow way and not delivering the breadth that young people need. The data based on the new accountability measures will shine an interesting light both on schools that are perhaps not as good as they thought they were, and on schools that looked like they were at the bottom of the table but are actually achieving good results given the prior attainment of their students.

Meg Hillier: The Public Accounts Committee has been calling for greater financial accountability of schools and it is not clear from the Minister’s statement whether the new data portal will include that, or how open the data will be. Will he come to Shoreditch and allow some of our tech businesses to work with him and the Department on that data so that we have a telephone app that tells parents about the quality of the schools they are choosing?

David Laws: I am happy to pursue the issue further with the hon. Lady. I have already promised a visit to Birmingham, so I am not at this stage ready to promise a visit to Shoreditch. I would, however, certainly like to engage with her on this topic. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for the sedentary chuntering. It has to be said that the place the hon. Lady has in mind is nowhere near Birmingham, but I am sure that the Minister, who is a man of prodigious brainpower, will be fully conscious of that fact.

Bob Russell: As a former pupil of St Helena secondary modern school for boys, I thank the Minister for taking the first step in 50 years to address the educational imbalance between academic and non-academic subjects. The Minister mentioned vocational subjects, one of which was engineering, but he was silent on building trade skills and motor mechanic skills. Will he give an assurance that they will form part of the vocational subjects, and with the holistic approach of “schools for life”, does he agree that first aid should be part of the curriculum?

David Laws: I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for these announcements, but I fear that on the issue of first aid, I will be unable to give him a different answer from the one given on previous occasions by the Secretary of State. On my hon. Friend’s wider point, it is important for all serious, high-value vocational qualifications to be accessible through this route. He will know that we have taken a close look at the whole suite of vocational qualifications to make sure that there are serious equivalents because of some of the problems that arose under the last Government. If he is concerned about particular qualifications, he should write to me and I will respond in detail.

Chris Skidmore: I am honoured to be mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I absolutely welcome the progress measure, but on its detail, will the key stage floor target be taken at the end of year 6 or the beginning of year 7, given the overwhelming evidence and research showing that achievement at key stage 2 drops over the summer before they arrive at secondary school?

David Laws: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. We will use the end of key stage 2 data. As an expert on these matters, he may want to probe annexe B of our consultation response, which sets out in some detail how this aspect will work. We will also make sure that proper credibility pertains to all the key stage 2 data. Because it will be used to measure secondary schools’ achievement, it is even more important than it is now for this data to be fully credible and properly stress-tested.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of declining social mobility, it is important to tackle coasting schools to make sure that they do not fail the brightest pupils from the most modest backgrounds and that all schools have a responsibility to have a programme for talented children, which should not be just an optional extra?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the deficiencies of the existing accountability regime is that it is too easy for schools in comfortable catchment areas to coast and to fail to deliver for many of their pupils. They are not in the spotlight at present; they will be in the future.

Damian Hinds: Of all this Government’s school reforms, is this perhaps the most significant in terms of its breadth of impact right across education, ensuring that teachers’ efforts on behalf of all pupils are fully recognised? Does the Minister anticipate a warm welcome from teachers, who will be able to do what they entered this noble profession to do: to deliver a broad education free from the artificial constraints of the C/D borderline?

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that today’s announcement has so far been warmly welcomed by teachers’ organisations and others. It will allow a good measure of accountability—an intelligent accountability that drives the right results and the right behaviours at all schools.

Christopher Pincher: I welcome the statement. Pursuant to the point about key stage 2 raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), may we use this opportunity to encourage greater integration between secondary and primary schools? All too many students go to secondary school at the age of 11 with a reading age of 7, and many of them are condemned to fail at GCSE the moment they walk through the door of their secondary school. We need to see greater linkage between secondaries and primaries, so that those secondaries are able to identify potential challenges in their future cohorts as early as possible.

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely important point. He will know that as part of our proposals on primary accountability, we are significantly increasing the bar for what success looks like at the end of primary school. We are doing that because pupils at the end of primary school who achieve only the level of attainment set as a measure of achievement by the previous Government overwhelmingly go on to fail even the existing five good GCSE measure. We cannot possibly allow a level of success at the end of primary school that prepares students for failure rather than success in secondary school.

Richard Fuller: Effective implementation is likely to require accountability to run both ways. Head teachers who are inspired by this and other measures to tackle educational underachievement have the right to know that the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency and Ofsted are there to help them, and that their interactions with those agencies will be courteous, open and effective. Will the Minister do his part, in
	respect of accountability, to ensure that those agencies support the head teachers who are in the front line when it comes to making these changes happen?

David Laws: I will certainly do that. Head teachers want to feel that they are supported by all parts of the education system, including our Department, and they want an accountability system which they see as fair and which drives the right incentives. I believe that what I have announced today will give them that.

Therese Coffey: I welcome the statement, and particularly the fact that English and maths will be given double weighting in the new table. I am sure that that will lead to a greater quality, if not quantity, of teaching. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing draft data so that parents can have the necessary information before attending open evenings and choosing secondary schools for their offspring?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the double weighting of English and maths, which we think sends a clear signal about the crucial role of those subjects. We will do what we can through the data portal to give parents as much information as possible about the issues, as soon as possible. We will also ensure that the key measures are published on the website of every single school so that parents can see what they often cannot see at present, namely a consistent comparison of the key performance indicators of all schools.

Philip Hollobone: Any system of school or pupil assessment which results in all pupils’ being pushed to do the very best that they can must be a good thing, but can the Minister explain to parents in Kettering—without using any departmental jargon—at what stage children’s predicted GCSE results will be established, and how that measure of progress, whether it be one grade above or one grade below, will be assessed and audited?

David Laws: Yes, I can. I refer the hon. Gentleman to annexe B, which we published today and which will provide him with a fair amount of detail about how we will calculate the measure. I hope that that reassures him, but I shall be happy to meet him if he wants to discuss the matter further.

David Burrowes: My constituents cannot wait for the Secretary of State’s forthcoming visit to see the good progress that schools
	have made on GCSE results—particularly St Anne’s school, where there has been a remarkable 28% improvement. I especially welcome the new progress measures that the Minister has announced, and I commend his statement for its fairness. Broomfield school, which is just down the road from St Anne’s and of which I am a governor, has come out of special measures and is making good progress, but in terms of GCSE results it has to deal with a very challenging intake, not least the pupils who leave key stage 2 lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills.

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted to hear that, as ever, a warm welcome awaits the Secretary of State, at that school and indeed all others in the country.

David Rutley: I, too, welcome the statement. I am particularly pleased to be able to add my welcome and support to those of many employment organisations. I especially welcome the focus on destination measures: true outcomes of educational attainment. Can the Minister shed more light on that? Will the destinations include apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships, and are there lessons to be learnt from other countries for the purpose of this important measure?

David Laws: Obviously we will be considering educational destinations, apprenticeships, and employment destinations with training. We need to ensure that we can collect all the information properly so that when schools receive it on their websites they recognise it, regard it as fair, and regard the Government as having captured accurately data which currently we do not possess in a single place, but believe that we can bring together.

Robert Halfon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the leadership of Helena Mills, Burnt Mill academy in Harlow has this year achieved 76% A to C grades in maths and English at GCSE, compared with a figure of just 27% a few years ago, by carrying out many of the measures that he set out and having a relentless focus on maths and English? Will he look at such schools to see examples of good practice and how the new accountability system works?

David Laws: I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend about the success of his local school. We are always looking at what we can learn from examples of schools that do so fantastically well, and we hope that the new accountability regime will be welcomed by his local school.

Points of Order

Andrew Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of my constituent Mr Peter Hitchens, I wish to raise concern about the remark made about him in this House in the Syria debate on 29 August by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who said, in reference to an article by Mr Hitchens:
	“Peter Hitchens wrote recently, in support of the Assad regime, that the Syrian Government were not lying and that it made ‘more sense’ for the opposition to poison and kill more than 1,000 of their own people.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1503.]
	Mr Hitchens has raised this matter with your office and directly with the hon. Member for Braintree, as have I, but it remains unresolved. Mr Hitchens does not support the Assad regime, and it is clear from his articles that he does not. He is concerned that this allegation currently rests on the Hansard record without challenge or correction. I am sure that you would agree, Mr Speaker, that it is important, in debate, that we argue on the basis of what those who disagree with us actually say, rather than what we might choose to attribute to them. I hope through this point of order to have corrected the record on behalf of my constituent.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it, as well as for sharing his intentions by letter and e-mail with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). For my own part, speaking from the Chair, I would not seek for one moment to interpose myself in a dispute or altercation between the hon. Member for Braintree and Mr Peter Hitchens. I think that the point stands as the right hon. Gentleman has made it, and I would just like to say that the hon. Member for Braintree said what he judged and judges to be right. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no criticism of him. Mr Peter Hitchens is well known to me. I have been acquainted with him for a great many years and disagreed with him for almost all of those years on almost all matters under the sun, but it is a matter of almost uncontested fact that Mr Hitchens is a man of both provocative talent and unimpeachable integrity. We will leave the matter there.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you will indulge me with the benefit of your extensive expertise in all things procedural in this Chamber. I was pulled out of the shuffle for questions to the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow but have subsequently been notified by the Cabinet Office that the DPM is refusing to answer my question on constitutional reform. Can you offer me guidance as to how I may challenge that decision, so that the Deputy Prime Minister is held accountable by Members of this House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of his intention to raise it with me. I simply say to him that it has always been for the Government to decide which Minister is responsible for answering questions. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but as far as I can see
	from the material available to me nothing disorderly has occurred. It is often the case that a question put to one Minister can be judged, perfectly reasonably, to be more within the purview of another. If such a judgment has been made, it is not for the Chair to quibble with it. I do not seek to engage the hon. Gentleman further at this time, so he should not spring to his feet and recite to me the question he had posed. I think it is fair to record that in his otherwise unexceptionable letter to me on the matter dated today he does not say what the question was. I have at this stage to conclude that the transfer, though from his vantage point frustrating, was, as I say, not disorderly. But he is nothing if not a perspicacious terrier, and I feel sure that he will use all his intellectual and political resources to test the Deputy Prime Minister in another way on a different occasion. We will leave it there, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.

Kevin Brennan: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Mr Speaker: I like saving up the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) until last, so we will take a point of order from Mr Kevin Brennan.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not being able to give you notice of this. The highly acclaimed Ensemble Al-Kindi from Syria was due to appear next week in Cardiff at the world music exhibition but have been denied visas, despite the fact that the following week they will be performing in Helsinki at the Savoy theatre and have visas for the Schengen area from France. Is there any means by which I could draw this case to the attention of Ministers for their urgent consideration today so that they can look at it with a view to reviewing it?

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he has found his own salvation. He has just drawn it to the attention of those on the Government’s Front Bench. The Government Chief Whip, the Patronage Secretary, is in his place, as are other distinguished and senior Ministers. I cannot say that I am familiar with the ensemble concerned, and I have no responsibility, of course, for migration or visa policy. I can say only that if the ensemble is anything like as good as the hon. Gentleman when he is playing in MP4, the people of Cardiff will be sorely deprived by the absence of the said ensemble. We will leave it there for now.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, this is one of my points of order that will not find its own salvation. You will be aware that it is very unusual for the head of the Security Service, MI5, to make a public statement about a leak of information, and in this case he has said that it has done extreme damage to the security of this country. Given that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has made a pronouncement that The Guardian has acted in the public interest in its role in leaking this information, have you had notice of any intention to have a statement from a Cabinet Minister on whether the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility still applies?

Mr Speaker: I have received no indication that any Minister intends to come to the Dispatch Box to opine on that matter. Whether knowledge that the hon. Gentleman
	is keen for one or other of them to do so would act as an incentive or a disincentive to do so, I leave the House to speculate. We will leave it there for now. I hope that the appetite of the House is now about to be satisfied by the hon. Member for Rhondda.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that I need salvation from you, because on 24 May I tabled two questions to the Minister for Immigration at the Home Office, numbers 157647 and 157648. They were named day questions, which were meant to be replied to on 5 June. They were actually replied to on 8 October. That is not the worst of it. I tabled another named day question on 16 May to the same Minister, which was meant to have been replied to on 21 May, and it has still not been replied to. The Minister sends flummoxing answers.
	May I make some suggestions on how we might deal with the Home Office that you might be able to take up? First, we could print every reply that is late in red on the Order Paper, so that we all know quite how often the Home Office is late. Or we could introduce a late answer penalty of £100, taken off a Minister’s salary, for every question that is answered late; I do not think that the Home Secretary would be receiving any salary at all this year. Or you could give them all a dressing-down.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who not only raises a problem but proffers a solution, which it is extraordinarily generous of him to do all in one go. My own response is rather prosaic I am afraid. In the immediate term, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman—and I mean it very seriously—that he takes the matter up directly with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee. [Interruption.] He says that he has already done that. I should have thought that the Procedure Committee would be dissatisfied. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position that he has written to me, and I am advised thus by my secretary, but I have not yet seen the letter. When I have done and a reply is penned, it will wing its way to the hon. Gentleman.
	All of those proposals will be reflected upon, but on a serious note, I do say to Ministers that it is deeply unsatisfactory, and should be a source of some shame to Ministers, including those who have overall responsibility for conduct, when delays of this kind take place. Quite apart from considerations of efficiency, it is simply rude. I know that it is not something that the Chief Whip would ever want because he is among the most courteous people in the House, but it really should be gone. I say in fairness that when the Government Chief Whip was Leader of the House he was always most solicitous in pursuing these matters with Ministers, and I feel sure that the Leader of the House, who is temporarily unavailable to us for a very short period, will, when he returns, get on to the matter without delay. I know that if that does not happen, the hon. Gentleman will be on to me again, so we must find a solution.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	National Insurance Contributions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Danny Alexander, Mr Sajid Javid, Mr David Gauke and Nicky Morgan, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to national insurance contributions; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 112) with explanatory notes (Bill 112-EN).

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means) (No. 2)

Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees which–
	(a) relate to applications under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, and
	(b) are of an amount determined in a way that takes into account the costs associated with such applications in cases where no fee is payable.—(Damian Green.)

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, in place of paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order of 10 June 2013:
	(1) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration–
	(a) shall be taken on the days and in the order shown in the Table
	(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the protection of persons from harm of a sexual nature or relating to violent offender orders. 7.00pm on the first day 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Parts 1 to 6 or otherwise relating to anti-social behaviour; amendments to Parts 1 to 6; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to firearms; amendments to Part 8. 10.00pm on the first day 
			 Remaining new Clauses and new Schedules, except those relating to the control of dogs; amendments to Parts 9 to 13. 2.30pm on the second day 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the control of dogs; amendments to Part 7; remaining proceedings on Consideration. 4.30pm on the second day 
		
	
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30pm on the second day.
	I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on his appointment as the new shadow Policing Minister and wishing him well. I am sure that he and I will spend many happy hours debating this important issue. I wish him many happy years on the Opposition Front Bench.
	The programme motion extends the time available for consideration on Report from one day to two days. Among the new clauses that have been tabled is new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and co-sponsored by 67 other right hon. and hon. Members. It seeks to provide for a new child sexual abuse prevention order. The Government agree that the civil prevention orders under part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are in need of reform and have therefore also tabled some substantial amendments on the issue.
	Given the level of support for new clause 5 and the serious issues it seeks to address, it is right that the House should be afforded sufficient time to debate
	these provisions. The programme motion accordingly provides that we have until 7 pm today to debate the new clause and the associated Government amendments. Thereafter, it provides for the Bill’s antisocial behaviour and fire arms provisions and the related new clauses to be considered on this first day on Report, while all other provisions, including those relating to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, extradition and dangerous dogs, will be considered tomorrow.

Julian Huppert: I am glad that we have more time available for debate, but does the Minister share my concern that the debate on schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, which we are supposed to have tomorrow, along with many other matters, from the Opposition’s proposals to ban synthetic caffeine through to much else, have at most a two-hour slot until 2.30 pm? Is there any way we could save time on the Deep Sea Mining Bill and have more time to discuss those matters?

Damian Green: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is an unfair allocation of time, either between this Bill and others, as he mentioned, or within the provisions of the Bill. I think that we have achieved a fair allocation of time among the many important issues the Bill addresses. That should allow the House sufficient opportunity to consider both the Government amendments and others that have been tabled. As I have said, underlying the programme motion is the fact that we have extended the time the House has to consider the Bill on Report from one day to two days. I hope that the House will agree to the motion quickly so that we can get on to debating the many substantive issues before us.

Jack Dromey: I thank the Minister for his kind comments and pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), in whose giant footsteps I am privileged to walk. He has been an outstanding Minister and shadow Minister, a great champion of the police service and one of the finest Members this House has seen in many years.
	I rise to urge the House to reject the programme motion. I do so not because programme motions are inappropriate in general—far from it—but because in this case the programme motion is being used to curtail debate and because the Government are running scared after having lost a number of votes in Committee, and a Whip and a Minister, during the deliberations on this Bill.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) pointed out on Second Reading, while there are measures in this Bill that we support—crucially, the new child protection measures—it is a Christmas-tree Bill with a bit on a number of measures. There is a bit on police standards, a bit on guns and a bit on dogs, but in none of those areas does the Bill go far enough, and it is weak on tackling antisocial behaviour. It weakens antisocial behaviour powers at a time when the Office for National Statistics shows there is concern among the public that antisocial behaviour is increasing, with eight in 10 telling the ONS it has increased in their direct experience over the past year.

Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of support for the point of view he is expressing, not least from my constituency on the issue of protecting children from sexual exploitation? Will he therefore feel very confident in promoting the case he is now putting?

Jack Dromey: This issue will be addressed shortly, and there is widespread consensus across the House on the importance of strengthening powers to protect children.
	It is with this in mind that we express our concern about the programme motion, which will curtail debate on important measures, such as our proposals on dangerous dogs and measures on protection for public-facing workers, undercover policing and guns and also issues put forward by Members on the Government Benches, like extradition.
	There are 89 pages of amendments and new clauses, many of which have been tabled by the Government at the last minute as, sadly, has often become the case with this Government. As a direct result, there will be little time to debate many of these important issues that we and Members on the Government Benches have put forward. For absolute clarity, I should state that the Opposition were asked whether we would support an extension of time for debate today and tomorrow, only for the Government then to cut the time for debate tomorrow. What is most worrying is the sense that the Government are using the programme motion because they are running scared of losing a vote on dangerous dogs, not least because many of their Members will be partying at a social occasion elsewhere.
	Earlier today I met Michael Anderson, a fine man whose 14-year-old daughter Jade was killed by four dangerous dogs. He came to this House hoping that we would properly debate taking tough action so that, as he said, no father would ever again suffer what he has suffered. This Bill offered the Government the perfect opportunity finally to bring forward the kind of tough legislation necessary to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners, but, despite support for action from MPs on both sides of the House, they failed to act.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend highlights a very sad and tragic case extremely well to make his point. The point my constituents have made to me about both dangerous dogs and gun crime is that they are incredibly difficult subjects that need to be examined in great detail in order to get changes in the law right. Anything rushed or done without proper consideration runs the risk of not making things better, and possibly making them worse.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is not just about the tough action that is necessary but about getting the right kind of action, and that can be ensured only by way of proper debate in this House.
	The Government gave a commitment in Committee that they would review the maximum penalties for an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but last week they waited until after a few minutes after the deadline for tabling new amendments to the Bill, then let the House know that they would bring forward proposals on Report despite previous assurances to the contrary. Having failed to act, the Government now propose to fix the timetable so that our proposals for
	robust action in the form of dog control notices, which have worked so effectively in Scotland, will not receive proper debate, and to ensure that they do not lose the vote—a decision condemned by Michael Anderson.
	It may be that I am naturally suspicious, but in the Government’s conduct over dangerous dogs, I smell a rat. First, we had the removal of the Minister who promised that the Government would review action on dangerous dogs and bring back proposals on Report, and then the new Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), last week waited until after the deadline for tabling amendments to inform the House that the Government will be doing no such thing. Now the Government want to fix the timetable to avoid debate and losing a vote. The Minister knows a thing or two about conspiracy theories, but I am sure he did not expect to be involved in one quite so quickly. Despite his being responsible for dogs and ASBOs, the Government do not even list him as a speaker in the debate. It would appear that he has been silenced less than a week into his tenure of office. I would urge him to investigate.
	I urge the House to reject the programme motion and encourage the Government to allocate more time for debate. Any Government’s first duty to their citizens is to ensure their safety and security. Our citizens would expect nothing less than these very important measures, but the motion fails to ensure that they are properly debated in this House.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on his new role and on his powerful speech, which came across very well and covered issues that he clearly cares about. However, I do not agree with his factual interpretation. If we do not pass this programme motion, we will be left with the programme motion that we passed unanimously in this House previously, which means that we will have only the rest of today for debate. I am afraid that the outcome of his suggestion is that we would have only five and a quarter hours to continue the debate, and I hope that we will not take up too much of it with this discussion. I understand the reason for his proposal, but unfortunately it suffers from the fact that it would curtail debate. He made an important point about having time to discuss dogs, and I am pleased to see that two hours are protected for that purpose. If we voted against this motion, we would risk having no debate on that issue at all.
	My concern about the programme motion relates to the section covering the period until 2.30 pm on the second day, which deals with a whole collection of new clauses and new schedules on matters other than dogs, with a maximum of two hours available for debate. They include forced marriage in Scotland, on which I will not claim to be an expert, court fees and compensation, and a collection of policing and offences issues, including several that I would like to raise about schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which needs to be curtailed. There are a range of other issues about drugs policy and a section on extradition. For all that, we have available a maximum of two hours, which would be limited even further in the event of any statements or urgent questions. I can accept voting for this motion because I have not tabled an amendment, and nor has anybody else, that would protect that time. However, in the event of there
	being statements or other things that delayed progress, will the Minister make sure that we have time to debate these very important subjects? Will he at least discuss with his colleagues whether there could be an amendment to the programme motion tomorrow to ensure that that crucial time, which many of us care about, is protected?

Kevan Jones: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on, and welcome him to, his new Front-Bench position. He has said that he has nothing in principle against programme motions, but had he been in the House before the last election he would have had to sit through the long debates in which Members who now sit on the Government Front Bench used to argue that programme motions were an evil of our age. They have not taken long to embrace programme motions or to use them as a way of curtailing debate.
	It is universally acknowledged that the Queen’s Speech was not jam-packed with proposed legislation, to the extent that we now routinely have Back-Bench business debates and Opposition days. This Government are reluctant to ensure that this House properly scrutinises Bills. If that is to happen, time has to be provided for it.
	A number of Bills have been rushed through this place with undue haste this Session, only to then be filleted in the other place, where more time is given for scrutiny. Sometimes that has been down to bad draftsmanship, and this Bill is a good example of that. My hon. Friend has already referred to the 89 pages of amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, which smacks to me of there being something wrong with the drafting of the Bill.
	My hon. Friend said that this is a Christmas tree Bill, but I would say that it is a dog’s breakfast—a dangerous dog’s breakfast—of a Bill. If we look back at previous attempts to legislate on the serious issue of dangerous dogs, we will see that getting it wrong can cost lives, so it is very important that we get it right this time. That can only be done through proper scrutiny by the House.

Mike Hancock: In the absence of any amendment to the programme motion, what could the House possibly gain from voting against it? If we did so we would, in effect, lose a whole day.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the hon. Gentleman, whose presence in the House has been limited because of illness, to his place. The fact of the matter is that there is a general trend under this Government to limit the time to consider all Bills, not just this one.
	The Bill raises serious issues and has a wide scope, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has said. It covers everything from the important issue of dangerous dogs to forced marriage and major issues of police reform, including a provision allowing foreigners to become police chiefs. Also—I know this is an issue of huge concern to some Government Members—it relates to the Terrorism Act 2000 and extradition. If we are to have a serious debate about such issues and ensure public confidence in us, we need more time than that allotted by the programme motion.
	The Minister has said that the programme motion is generous because it gives us an extra day, but that is not the case, unless the Minister’s day usually finishes
	at 5.30 pm on a Tuesday. Why can we not extend the time available for consideration until the usual time of 7 pm, which would at least give us nearly two extra hours? I understand that Government Members are keen to attend to certain social engagements. I was surprised to read in the press at the weekend that the Opposition had agreed to the programme motion when they clearly had not. It has been a trend of this Government to believe that if they say something, it must be true, and if they keep saying something, it most definitely is true.
	This House must do a proper job of scrutinising this large piece of legislation, which contains some crucial issues that will affect our constituents directly. The allocated time is not sufficient to ensure that we do that.

Dominic Raab: I want briefly to put on the record my concern that the programme motion does not allow for proper debate and scrutiny of the Executive, in particular in relation to the extradition clauses and amendments.
	I appreciate that there are limitations on the number of Back-Bench amendments that can be considered during the Report stage of any Bill. However, yet again, substantive clauses on extradition reform that were tabled in Committee risk not being properly scrutinised by the House. The extradition proposals make up the last of four clusters of amendments to be debated tomorrow between 2.30 and 4.30 pm, so the chances are that we will have no time to debate them.
	This is not the first time that that has happened. The Government’s new forum test for US and EU extradition was tabled during the Committee stage of the Crime and Courts Bill earlier this year. The House was again timed out of any consideration on Report back in March.
	The broader context is that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have loudly promised extradition reform. It is in the coalition programme, no less. The legislative proposals follow an independent inquiry by Sir Scott Baker, which was conducted at great public expense. It is surely vital that we properly consider the case for reform and deliver on the promises that have been made.
	Unbelievably, the Government’s forum clause, which was slipped into the Crime and Courts Bill and which becomes law today, is worse than the status quo. It makes the repetition of unjust cases, such as those of Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, more likely, not less. We have had no chance to debate the substance of those proposals on the Floor of the House. They have had precious little critical, substantive scrutiny.
	The proposed safeguards for the European arrest warrant in this Bill are more positive, but they are still too weak. Again, they were introduced in Committee and the whole House should have an opportunity to consider amendments to strengthen them, not least because they will form the basis of the Government’s case for opting back into the European arrest warrant later this year. The programme motion makes it highly likely that we will be timed out again. I fear that that will weaken the Government’s case for opting back into the European arrest warrant, when I believe the intention was to strengthen the case.
	It may be a clever device to avoid proper scrutiny, but it comes at a price to our democracy. First, it means that Parliament is not properly scrutinising the powers that the Executive wield over innocent British citizens. Secondly, the lack of scrutiny leaves empty and undelivered the heady political promises that have been made about extradition reform by politicians across this House. I urge the Government to think again and to guarantee enough time for even a short, modest debate about these important clauses.

Graham Allen: The Minister will know that the city of Nottingham has a very good record of tackling antisocial behaviour, built on the alliance between the police, police community support officers and community protection officers. He will know that because I have written to him on several occasions about the issue.
	Does the Minister think that we will have sufficient time to discuss the police’s powers of direction, which the city of Nottingham would like to extend in part to PCSOs and CPOs? Not every city is prepared to take on those powers, but the cities that are would find them of great benefit in the continuing battle against antisocial behaviour, which is taking place in Nottingham and beyond.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who covered some of my points about why I will find it difficult to support the programme motion. I wish to speak specifically to the time allocated for debating the European arrest warrant, which is of considerable interest to my constituent Andrew Symeou, by whom my view is informed and who has been a victim of a failed and flawed process.
	The significance of the issue means that we require more time to debate it. Although the House has had many debates on the subject of the European arrest warrant and extradition, at no point has it had the chance to debate the extensive Scott Baker report that the Home Secretary commissioned, yet we are expected to have an informed opinion on detailed new clauses that are effectively the Government’s response to that report and that set out our future extradition policy.
	The lack of time means that we will have no chance to examine how effective the reforms are, including those in the new clauses. My hon. Friend has tabled a significant number of amendments and new clauses that I believe would strengthen the European arrest warrant and protect the rights of the British citizen, while still broadly supporting the principle of opting back into it. Those amendments have drawn cross-party support, so it is regrettable that we will probably not have the chance to address them because of the order in which the groups of amendments will be taken tomorrow. Whatever the reason behind that order, we need to discuss the issues of temporary extradition, which sounds good but could be strengthened to protect our constituents; of proportionality; and of whether we should discuss the use of extradition as a last resort, not the first resort. Its use as the first resort has plagued the lives of many citizens of this country who have been wrongfully extradited.
	My constituent Andrew Symeou spent two years out of the country as part of a four-year period of great disruption to his and his family’s life, including one year in jail. He was then rightly returned to this country when the Greek authorities finally threw out his case after four years. I made him a promise that during my time in the House, I would fight to ensure that others did not go through what he did. We had the opportunity to take that fight to the Floor of the House and discuss in detail how to make the situation better. Unfortunately, through the programme motion, the House has denied him the right to have it discussed and denied me the right to be his voice. That is a matter of regret and will make it difficult for me to form a positive judgment about opting back into the European arrest warrant, since the House has been denied the opportunity to challenge, probe and, hopefully, improve it.

Julie Hilling: I will not detain the House long, particularly while we are discussing the lack of time to debate the Bill, but I wanted to add my concern about the Government’s decision to curtail debate tomorrow. I fail to see what could be more important than debating issues of life and death.
	My constituent Royston Brett set off on Friday and has cycled almost 250 miles from Atherton to Westminster to add his voice to those demanding more action to prevent dog attacks. He was supported on his journey by Michael Anderson, the father of Jade Lomas Anderson, who was tragically killed by four out-of-control dogs in March. When Michael and Royston cycled into New Palace Yard at 1 o’clock today, they were extremely upset to learn that the Government were curtailing the debate. They do not understand how they can spend three days making such a heroic effort to raise the issue of dangerous dogs, cycling in atrocious weather and sleeping in the car, but MPs cannot be bothered to work through until the normal hour tomorrow.
	The Government should rethink their strategy for the Bill and ensure that we have adequate time to discuss the 211 or so amendments. Jade and many thousands of other victims of dog attacks deserve nothing less.

Damian Green: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is required for the Minister to respond, but if he wishes to say some further words, he can.

Damian Green: With the leave of the House, I will, Mr Speaker.
	I detect just the faintest whiff of synthetic indignation in the air. I remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) that the Opposition did not vote against Second Reading, or against the original programme motion, which provided for just one day on Report. They are objecting to having two days allowed for the Bill, but they did not object to having one day. Proceedings in Committee finished ahead of schedule, and on Report the Opposition Front Benchers have tabled just one amendment to the Bill’s 142 clauses, as well as five new clauses.
	In opposing this second programme motion, the official Opposition are opposing the extra time on Report that the Government have volunteered. The Opposition did not request extra time, but they now argue there is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) rightly pointed out, if the Opposition succeed, the time devoted to discussing these important issues will be reduced rather than increased. [Interruption.] The Opposition Whip can continue chuntering from a sedentary position as much as he likes, but he has left himself in the ridiculous position of voting for the Bill to have less time devoted to it, rather than more. That is not effective opposition or Opposition whipping.
	Perhaps I may correct one factual point. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said that the Government waited until after the tabling deadline to announce that they would not be tabling amendments on the maximum sentence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That is not the case. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on that issue last Thursday, and the tabling deadline for amendments to be debated tomorrow was last Friday. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has tabled amendments on that issue, so we can debate it tomorrow.
	I take the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). Progress through the amendments tomorrow will be a matter for the House, but I see no reason why there should not be an opportunity to debate the important reforms to our extradition arrangements. The protestations from the Opposition simply do not add up.

Julian Lewis: We have often been in this situation and found that we have not had enough time to debate important amendments. Would the Minister have any objection to some of the important amendments being put to the vote if the guillotine falls before we have had time to debate them?

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend knows, it is not for Ministers to decide whether things are put to the vote; that is up to the Chair.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) prayed in aid what happened in previous Parliaments. As I have said, this programme motion provides for additional time on Report. Indeed, this is the sixth Bill this Session that has received multiple days for its remaining stages. That is in stark contrast to the previous Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported and who routinely provided for only one day on Report and Third Reading. There is much more scrutiny of Bills under this Government than there was under the previous Government, and if the Opposition succeed there will be less parliamentary discussion—as is characteristic of the Labour party—rather than more, which is what the coalition Government have introduced.
	On reflection, I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will reconsider his position and allow the programme motion to pass without further ado so that we can get on with the substantive issues before the House.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 294, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Violent offender orders

‘(1) In section 98 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (violent offender orders), after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	“(6) The Secretary of State may by order—
	(a) amend subsection (3);
	(b) make consequential amendments to subsection (4).”
	(2) In section 147(5) of that Act (orders etc subject to affirmative resolution procedure), after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
	“(da) an order under section 98(6),”.
	(3) In section 99 of that Act (qualifying offenders), in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) (meaning of “relevant offence”) after “a specified offence” there is inserted “, or the offence of murder,”.’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 14—Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc.
	Government new clause 15—Saving and transitional provision.
	New clause 5—Child sexual abuse prevention orders—
	‘(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) For sections 123 (Risk of sexual harm orders: applications, grounds and effect) to 129 (Effect of conviction etc. of an offence under section 128) substitute—
	“123 Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Orders: Applications and grounds
	(1) On the application of a qualifying person, or on conviction of a qualifying offence, a magistrates’ court may make a ‘child sexual abuse prevention order’ if it is satisfied that it is necessary to make such an order for the purposes of protecting children generally or any particular child from serious sexual harm from the defendant.
	(2) A qualifying person under subsection (1) shall be a chief officer of police or an officer, of superintendant rank or above, in the NCA or other relevant agency to be decided by the Home Secretary.
	(3) In subsection (1) a defendant shall be considered to be convicted of a qualifying offence who—
	(a) is convicted of an offence listed in schedules 3 and 5;
	(b) is found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity;
	(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence;
	(d) is cautioned in respect of such an offence;
	“(1) A chief officer of police may apply for an order under this section in respect of a person who resides in his police area or who the chief officer believes is in, or is intending to come to, his police area.
	(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made to a magistrates’ court whose commission area includes—
	(a) any part of the police area, or
	(b) any place where it is alleged that the defendant committed one or more offences listed in schedules 3 and 5.
	Section 123: supplemental
	‘(1) In this Part, ‘Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Order’ means an order under section 123.
	(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply for the purposes of Section 1.
	(3) ‘Protecting children generally or any particular child from serious sexual harm from the defendant’ means protecting persons under 18 or any person under 18, in or outside the United Kingdom, from serious physical or psychological harm caused by the defendant committing one or more offences listed in Schedule 3.
	(4) Acts, behaviour, convictions, and findings include those occurring before the commencement of this Part.
	(5) In subsection (1)(1), a person shall also be considered to have been convicted of a qualifying offence if, under law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom and whether before or after the commencement of this Part—
	(a) he has been convicted of a relevant offence (whether or not he has been punished for it),
	(b) a court exercising jurisdiction under that law has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is not guilty by reason of insanity,
	(c) such a court has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is under a disability and did the act charged against him in respect of the offence, or
	(d) he has cautioned in respect of a relevant offence.
	(6) In subsection (5), a ‘relevant offence’ means an act which—
	(a) constituted an offence under the law in force in the country concerned, and
	(b) would have consituted an offence within schedules 3 and 5 if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom.
	(7) An act punishable under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence under that law for the purposes of subsection (6), however it is described in that law.
	(8) Subject to subsection (9), on an applicatioin under section 1 the condition in subsection (6)(b) above (where relevant) is to be taken as met unless, not later than rules of the court may provide, the defendant serves on the applicant a notice—
	(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act concerned, the condition is not in his opinion met,
	(b) showing his grounds for that opinion, and
	(c) requiring the applicant to prove that the condition is met.
	(9) The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defendant to require the applicant to prove that the condition is met without the service of a notice under subsection (8).
	Child-SAPOs: effect
	‘(1) A Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Order—
	(a) prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order, and
	(b) has effect for a fixed period (not less than five years) specified in the order or until further order.
	(2) The only prohibitions that may be included in the order are those necessary for the purpose of protecting children generally or any particular child from serious sexual harm from the defendant.
	(3) Where a court makes a child sexual abuse prevention order in relation to a person already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order ceases to have effect.
	(4) Section 3(3) applies for the purposes of this section and section 5.
	Child-SAPOs: variations, renewals and discharges
	‘(1) A person within subsections (2) may apply to the appropriate court for an order varying, renewing or discharging a child sexual abuse prevention order.
	(2) The persons are—
	(a) the defendant;
	(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides;
	(c) a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come on to, his police area;
	(d) where an order was made on an application under section 1(1), the chief officer or other qualifying person who made the application.
	(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made—
	(a) where the appropriate court is the Crown Court, in accordance with rules of the court;
	(b) in any other case, by complaint.
	(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), on the application of the court, after hearing the person making the application and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection (2), may make any order, varying, renewing or discharging the child sexual abuse prevention order, that the court considers appropriate.
	(5) An order may be renewed, or varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on or to lift prohibitions from the defendant, only if it is necessary to do so for the purposes of protecting children generally or any particular child from serious sexual harm from the defendant (and any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose).
	(6) The court must not discharge an order before the end of five years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the defendant and—
	(a) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, that chief officer, or other qualifying person or
	(b) in any other case, the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides.
	(7) In this section ‘the appropriate court’ means—
	(a) where the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal made the child sexual abuse prevention order, the Crown Court;
	(b) where a magistrates’ court made the order, that court, a magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides, or where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes any part of the chief officers’ police area or any area where the alleged offences occurred.
	(c) where a youth court made the order, that court, the youth court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made, any youth court whose commission area includes any part of a chief officer’s police area or any place where the alleged offences occurred.
	(8) This section applies to orders under—
	(a) Section 5A of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51) (restraining orders),
	(b) Section 2 or 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (sex offender orders made in England and Wales and Scotland),
	(c) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders made in Northern Ireland), and
	(d) as it applies to child sexual abuse prevention orders.
	Interim Child-SAPOs
	‘(1) This section applies where an application under section 123(1) (‘the main application’) has not been determined.
	(2) An application for an order under this section (‘an interim child sexual abuse prevention order’)—
	(a) may be made by the complaint by which the main application is made, or
	(b) if the main application has been made, may be made by the person who has made that application, by complaint to the court to which that application has been made.
	(3) The Court may, if it considers it just to do so, make an interim child sexual abuse prevention order, prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
	(4) Such an order—
	(a) has effect only for a fixed period, specified in the order;
	(b) ceases to have effect, if it has not already done so, on the determination of the main application.
	(5) The applicant or the defendant may by complaint apply to the court that made the interim child sexual abuse prevention order for the order to be varied, renewed or discharged.
	(6) Subsection (5) applies to orders under—
	(a) Sections 2A or 20(4)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (interim orders made in England and Wales Scotland), and
	(b) Article 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) (interim orders made in Northern Ireland),
	as it applies to interim child sexual abuse prevention orders.
	Child-SAPO and interim Child-SAPO appeals
	‘(1) A defendant may appeal to the Crown Court against the making of a child sexual abuse prevention order under section 123(1).
	(2) A defendant may appeal to the Crown Court aginst the making of an interim child sexual abuse prevention order under section 127(3).
	(3) A defendant may appeal against the making of an order under section 127(3), or the refusal to make such an order—
	(a) where the application for such an order was made to the Crown Court, to the Court of Appeal;
	(b) in any other case, to the Crown Court.
	(4) On an appeal under section (1), (2) or subsection (3)(b), the Crown Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
	(5) Any order made by the Crown Court on an appeal under sections (1) or (2) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a magistrates’ court) is for the purpose of subsecitons 126(7) and 127(6) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the Crown Court).
	Offence: breach of a Child-SAPO or interim Child-SAPO
	‘(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he does anything which he is prohibited from doing by—
	(a) a child sexual abuse prevention order;
	(b) an interim child sexual abuse prevention order,
	(c) an order under section 5A of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51) (restraining orders);
	(d) an offender under sections 2, 2A or 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (sex offenders orders and interim orders made in England and Wales and in Scotland);
	(e) an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders and interim orders made in Northern Ireland).
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for at term not exceeding five years.
	(c) where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, it is not open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional disharge or, in Scotland, a probation order.
	(3) The Home Secretary shall issue guidance on the use of child sexual abuse prevention orders and interim child sexual abuse prevention orders within six months of this section coming into force.”.’.
	New clause 7—Possession of prohibited written material about children—
	‘(1) Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (offence of possession of prohibited images of children) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after “prohibited image of a child” insert “or prohibited written material about a child”.
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	“(2A) Prohibited written material about a child is written material which—
	(a) is pornographic,
	(b) falls within subsection (6), and
	(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.”
	(4) In subsection (3), after “image” insert “or written material”.
	(5) After subsection (5) insert—
	“(5A) Where (as found in the person’s possession) written material forms part of a series of written material, the question whether the written material is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (2A) is to be determined by reference to—
	(a) the written material itself, and
	(b) (if the series of written material is such as to be capable of providing a context for the written material) the context in which it occurs in the series of written material.
	(5B) So, for example, where—
	(a) written material forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of written material, and
	(b) having regard to those written materials as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
	the written material may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.”
	(6) In subsection (6), insert “or written material” after the word “image” each time it appears.’.
	Government new schedule 1—Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	Government amendments 63 and 92 to 94.

Damian Green: The Government proposals are in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. New clauses 14 and 15, and new schedule 1, will simplify and strengthen the existing civil order regime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The inspiration for the reforms is the Childhood Lost campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who has attracted more than 100,000 signatures to her online petition and the support of 67 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have added their names to my hon. Friend’s
	new clause 5. I pay tribute to her and those on both sides of the House who have campaigned so effectively on this important issue.
	The Government essentially agree with the campaign and we are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. The UK has some of the toughest powers in the world to manage the risks posed by sex offenders, but in recognition of the important points highlighted by my hon. Friend’s campaign we are bringing forward amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make our powers even more effective.

Ann Coffey: I seek clarification from the Minister. The risk of sexual harm orders, which the new sexual risk orders would replace, can be given only to offenders aged 18 and over. Will the new sexual harm prevention orders also only apply to offenders over 18? If they will apply to offenders under 18, what consideration has he given to introducing accompanying rehabilitative provisions for child sex offenders?

Damian Green: If I may, I will first pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has campaigned on these issues for a long time and deserves much of the credit for raising public awareness. If I may, I will come to the details of the offences shortly.
	New clauses 14 and 15, and new schedule 1, will repeal the sexual offences prevention order, foreign travel order and risk of sexual harm order in England and Wales, and replace them with two new orders: the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order. I welcome the engagement of hon. Members on this issue and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon will be pleased to note that we have sought to include her points as far as possible in the Government amendments. Indeed, following consultation with front-line professionals, including the police, the courts, the National Offender Management Service and the National Crime Agency, in a number of respects the Government amendments go further than her new clause 5.
	The sexual harm prevention order will be available for those with convictions for sexual or violent offences. It may be made by a court on conviction, or by the magistrates court on application by the police or the National Crime Agency. A court may impose an order for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm.
	The sexual harm prevention order may prohibit the person from doing anything described in it, including preventing travel overseas. Any prohibition must be necessary for protecting the public in the UK from sexual harm or, in relation to foreign travel, protecting children or vulnerable adults from sexual harm. It lasts a minimum of five years and has no maximum duration, with the exception of any foreign travel restrictions which, if applicable, lasts for a maximum of five years but can be renewed.
	The second new civil order is the sexual risk order, which will be available for those who have not been convicted of an offence but who none the less pose a risk of sexual harm to the public. It may be made by the
	magistrates court on application by the police or the new National Crime Agency where an individual has done an act of a sexual nature and poses a risk of harm to the public in the UK or adults or vulnerable children overseas.

Julian Huppert: When the Minister mentioned the sexual risk orders, he helpfully highlighted the fact that they will apply to people who have not been convicted of any offence. What level of proof and standard of evidence will be needed to show that someone has done something of a sexual nature, and what would be included in that?

Damian Green: There is a specified list, which applies to the existing orders, and they are the obvious acts of a sexual nature. I take my hon. Friend’s point and, like him, I am very keen to see proper safeguards. That is why even the sexual risk order has to be made by a magistrate, so it will have judicial oversight and will not simply be available on the application of the police. That is a significant safeguard, and I hope that he would welcome that.
	Any prohibition in the sexual risk order must be necessary for protecting the public in the UK from sexual harm or, in relation to foreign travel, protecting children or vulnerable adults from sexual harm. Such an order will last a minimum of two years and has no maximum duration, with the exception of any foreign travel restriction which, if applicable, lasts for a maximum of five years, but can be renewed.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Damian Green: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). The two new orders will apply to both over-18s and under-18s.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for his earlier comments and for his understanding of the need for safeguards. I do not think he addressed the level of proof required in the court—whether it would be beyond reasonable doubt, or the balance of probability. Will he also explain, on the sexual risk order in particular, why the orders cannot be for less than two years? Why does he want to constrain magistrates?

Damian Green: We wish to avoid impracticalities in the system—we do not want to clog up the court system. The orders are serious enough to have that minimum period, and one hopes that it will make them effective and not mean a constant throughput of extra cases in the magistrates court. I will come on to more of the details, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend.
	The new regime will extend to England and Wales, although the protections afforded by the new orders will continue to relate to persons elsewhere in the UK, or beyond where necessary. We have included provision for cross-border enforcement and continue to liaise closely with the devolved Administrations.
	I can perhaps answer my hon. Friend’s question directly by addressing what has changed. A number of key changes make the new sexual harm prevention order and the new sexual risk order more robust, more flexible and therefore more effective than previous orders.
	The new orders may be made to manage broader categories of risk, allowing them to be used in particular to manage risk against adults and vulnerable adults, as well as children. All members of the public deserve to be adequately protected from sexual harm. This change will ensure that dangerous individuals can be managed, regardless of to whom they present a risk.
	Furthermore, the condition for the availability of the new sexual risk order is that the defendant has done an act of a sexual nature as a result of which it is necessary to protect the public. The previous “non-conviction” order required that the person concerned must have done at least two acts from a specified list of risky behaviour. The new provisions allow for an order as soon as an individual presents a risk.
	As well as local police forces, the National Crime Agency will be able to apply for either of the new orders. This is a reflection of its expertise and access to intelligence on aspects of sexual offending, particularly against children. The NCA will be required to notify the relevant force area, which will continue to be responsible for managing offenders. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that the standard of proof will be the criminal standard of proof—the highest standard.
	The remit of the new orders will be wider. For example, either will allow foreign travel restrictions to be applied. Our determination to prevent harm to children and vulnerable adults applies outside the United Kingdom as well as within. Individuals subject to the new sexual harm prevention order will be required to inform the police whenever their name or address changes. This will improve the police’s ability to monitor and manage individuals subject to these orders.
	Those are the changes. What we are keeping are the aspects of the old orders that have been shown to be effective. In line with the old order, the new sexual harm prevention order will make the offender subject to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders—it will put them on the sex offenders register. For both new orders, in line with the existing position, breach is a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Conviction for a breach of a sexual risk order would also make that individual subject to the sex offender notification requirements.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is being very generous in giving way and I thank him. One of the things he is keeping the same is the list of acts in the Sexual Offences Act, one of which states:
	“giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity”.
	There are some cases where that would clearly be inappropriate, but it might include a wide range of literature and textbooks, and that is presumably not the intention. How will the Minister ensure that there is no misinterpretation? We are keen to ensure the safeguards are correct.

Damian Green: As I said, I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire for the safeguards to be effective. That is why I laid great stress on the fact that this order will have to be made in court, so that if, as he suggests, a textbook has been given to a child, one imagines that—except in very odd circumstances—no sensible magistrate would regard that as in any way disturbing or warranting this type of activity. In this instance, we can rely on the
	protections that the courts rightly afford individuals to ensure that sensible decisions are made on these types of orders.
	What the new orders do is to ensure that the balance is even more firmly in favour of protecting the vulnerable from the risk of sexual harm. They will improve the use and effectiveness of this method of managing the risk to the public, and they will give the police and the National Crime Agency the flexibility they need to manage those individuals better.
	Let me deal briefly with new clause 8, which adds murder committed overseas to the list of offences that may form the basis for making a violent offender order. These are civil preventative orders, which can be used by the police to impose restrictions on offenders convicted of a specified violent offence and who pose a risk of serious violent harm to the public. They can prohibit their access to certain places, premises, events or people to whom they pose the highest risk. Murder was not originally one of the specified offences for application of a violent offender order because an individual convicted of murder in the UK is managed indefinitely as a result of his automatic life sentence. Having identified this gap in the reach of a violent offender order, this new clause is designed to close it. In addition, new clause 8 will enable additions to be made to the list of specified offences through secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure. Offenders and offending change over time, and it is right that the legislative powers for managing such behaviour can also change, while retaining appropriate parliamentary oversight.
	That covers the main Government amendments, which I commend to the House.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for setting out the amendments in the group. These are a completely new set of provisions on child protection, which the House did not have the opportunity to deal with on Second Reading or in Committee, so we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss them this afternoon. The House has, however, had several excellent debates on child protection over the last year, which is testament to how seriously colleagues of all parties take these issues and want to engage with them.
	The amendments before us are the result of hard work and concern across the House. I want to pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for her sterling work. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose new clause appears in this grouping; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has done an enormous amount of work on this subject; and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins).
	Government new clause 8 is the lead amendment in the group. As the Minister has set out, it is designed to make a sensible addition to the offences that can lead to action being taken against those who commit them. As we know, this came out of the tragic case of Maria Stubbings, who was murdered by her ex-partner, Marc Chivers. The Independent Police Complaints Commission recognised that there were gaps in the law in respect
	of the supervision of offenders convicted overseas. The Opposition are pleased to support this sensible new clause.
	Government new clause 14 deals with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, while I understand Government new clause 15 deals mainly with saving and transitional provisions. Government new schedule 1 provides for the practical introduction of the new orders, alongside new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and 67 other hon. Members, as the Minister pointed out, which creates the new child sexual abuse prevention order.
	The Opposition support the need to amend the current law. The sexual abuse and grooming cases that occurred in Oxford shocked the country, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has rightly gained huge respect from across the House for the serious way in which she has looked to address the issues with the Childhood Lost campaign. I know that she has worked with a number of charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, Action for Children, and many others.
	We are pleased that the Government have accepted the need for change, and have tabled their own amendments. We especially welcome the fact that the Government amendments extend the risk of sexual harm orders to adults as well as children. We should be interested to hear how the Minister intends to address the other key activities of the Childhood Lost campaign which are important in keeping our children safe.
	Ten years on, it is right for us to think about what was done by the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 and what parts of it need to be updated. The Act was a milestone that played a crucial role in improving our legislation on sex offences in many key respects, for instance by outlawing grooming. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for the key role that he played in introducing the legislation.
	The sad truth is that sex offenders, more than any other group of offenders, are prone to reoffend. We must accept that most sex offenders continue to pose a threat to children after their initial offences. That does not, of course, mean that all offenders will reoffend, but it does mean that we should try to identify those who pose the greatest risks, and try to do everything possible to mitigate those risks. Labour introduced three distinct powers which were intended to control the risks posed by known sex offenders.
	The Minister referred to the sexual offences prevention order, which was the first order that could be imposed on someone who had been convicted, and was to be applied at the time of conviction—or subsequently by the police—only if there was evidence of dangerous behaviour after offending. It covered both children and adults. The order allowed the courts to impose conditions on the offender that they considered to be necessary to reduce the risk of sexual harm. The risk of sexual harm order could be imposed without a conviction if a chief police officer had a reasonable belief that someone within his region had twice committed a sexual offence, and that an order was necessary to protect the public. That covered only children. The foreign travel order could be imposed only after conviction, but required
	evidence of post-conviction behaviour that gave cause for concern. An example was the order imposed on Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter.
	I think that all those measures were important, and demonstrated the commitment of the last Government to combating sex crime. However, it is clear that all three now need to be improved. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has undertaken important work in that regard in considering how we can improve the operation of the orders. I pay tribute to the recent report by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Hugh Davies QC on the workings of the current regime. New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Lady, would reform the risk of sexual harm order and establish a child sexual abuse prevention order extending to children under 18 rather than 16. It also—importantly—covers children and young people both inside and outside the United Kingdom, and would remove the requirement for two contact offences to be considered before an order could be made.
	The Government’s proposals create two new orders. New clause 14 creates the sexual harm prevention order, which can be applied to anyone who has been convicted or cautioned for a sexual violent offence, including offences committed overseas. It will replace the sexual offences prevention and foreign travel orders. The new order will be required for the purpose of protecting the public generally, or any particular member of the public, from sexual harm. I understand that the new clause removes the requirement for a risk of serious sexual harm, which takes it down one level. The Opposition welcome that. The court must be satisfied that the defendant’s behaviour makes it necessary for an order to be made. Again, only one contact offence is required, which means that more people can be included in the grouping.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady is providing a very helpful summary of the changes. I think that the removal of the word “serious” is a very important change, because it significantly widens the ambit of police activity in this area. The word “serious” creates quite a high threshold, and far too many cases were slipping through the net because they did not meet that criterion.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful for that intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from a great deal of experience as a member of the Bar and so fully understands the implications of the removal of the word “serious” from this definition.
	Sexual risk orders can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm in the UK or abroad, even if they have never been convicted, and replace the risk of sexual harm orders—again, these orders will apply to both adults and children. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), the Minister confirmed that the sexual risk order could be applied to a child sex offender but did not deal with the other issue she raised about the rehabilitation of a child who was subject to one of these orders. Will he deal with that in his closing remarks and say what is being put in place to support those children and young people to rehabilitate them?
	One key theme of these new orders is that both are equally committed to protecting children across the world. That is vital, because sex crimes are committed
	across the globe and, increasingly, paedophiles will cross borders to commit abuse. The global nature of sex crimes means that it is right that we make it easier to prevent foreign travel by known paedophiles and that we give equal prominence to crimes committed abroad when we are looking at the imposition of a civil order to protect children in the UK. We also need, however, to examine the issue of people who have not been convicted but pose a threat to children. I understand that the changes proposed today will also make it easier to impose an order when a criminal offence has not been committed. Such an example may be where an individual has attempted grooming on the net, for example, by impersonating a young person on social media, but has not actually, at that stage, committed a crime. Will the Minister explain whether the Government have any plans for introducing changes to legislation to make the grooming of a child on the internet an offence? I understand that it is only at the point when the person physically meets the child that an offence is committed.
	One thing that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has drawn attention to in the very good briefing she has provided is the fact that very few risk of sexual harm orders have been imposed each year. We hope that these new provisions will make it easier to acquire an equivalent restriction, by making orders applicable to cases where a crime was committed aboard or where the behaviour does not constitute an offence at this time. However, I wish to refer to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which related to the standard of proof required.
	One reason it is hard to impose a risk of sexual harm order is that such orders demand a criminal standard of proof, even though they are civil orders, and that difficulty may remain in respect of the future orders. The demand for a criminal standard of proof was not actually in the Sexual Offences Act and there was some confusion therefore about the standard of proof required. The Home Office did issue guidance, which suggested a civil standard of proof—the “reasonable belief” approach. However, the courts tended to take a different approach and it was only in 2012—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is about to intervene. It was only in 2012 that the issue was settled by the courts in the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v. Robert Ebanks, which established a binding precedent on the criminal standard.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady is making a very important point about the standard of proof. One key consideration is that breach is a criminal offence, and therefore there is a serious issue to consider as to the criminal consequences of a civil order that could be obtained by a civil standard of proof. That consideration was uppermost in the mind of the court considering that case and should be uppermost in our minds. As legislators, we need to get the balance right, and so the standard of proof should be a high one.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Again, I know that he speaks from great experience. I simply ask why so few orders have been taken through the courts and whether we need to consider the whole issue of the standard of proof that is required. We support the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which we think have a lot of merit.

Julian Huppert: I have been following everything that the hon. Lady says. I presume that she is not suggesting that someone should be jailed for five years without requiring a criminal standard of proof. Surely that is not what she is suggesting.

Diana Johnson: I find it extremely annoying that when Liberal Democrats get to their feet on child protection issues, when we are making sure that our children have the protection that we all want to see, this is the issue that is pursued. I am asking how best we can protect our children. There is genuinely a question to be asked about the standard that is used in the orders. The Government have chosen to introduce some new orders, which I fully support, but it is worth considering whose side we are on. Given some of the abuse cases that we have heard, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, we need to think long and hard about where our instincts should lie in ensuring that our children are protected.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Diana Johnson: I will continue, because I have a feeling that this debate could go on all night with the Liberal Democrats.
	I want to ask the Minister and the hon. Lady whether they feel that the threshold might be too high. I accept—the Liberal Democrats will like this bit—that there is a significant cost to the individual on whom an order is placed, reputationally, and particularly if that becomes public. We know that, because of public disgust associated with sex crimes, the effect of a sex offence order being imposed on an individual, whatever it is called, will be devastating to that individual.
	It has not helped that the risk of sexual harm orders that were previously in place have been called, I think wrongly, sex offence ASBOs, because the higher standard of proof makes that comparison unhelpful. At the same time, we must accept that there will be many occasions when the police have a well founded, reasonable belief that someone poses a risk to children but are not able to secure a conviction, because, for example, they cannot present in open court the evidence required. In particular, the situation could arise if a vulnerable witness is not in a position to give evidence in court. In such cases, we may want a civil protection order, precisely because we cannot get a conviction at the higher criminal standard. Will the Minister comment on whether the new orders will allow for far more cases to be subject to the orders?

Mark Reckless: We have learnt that many of the problems in this area have been a failure of enforcement—a failure of the various agencies to work together or to understand what was going on. However, I want to press the hon. Lady on the previous question. If someone has a civil order and then breaches it, could they go to prison for up to five years without at any point the criminal standard having been satisfied?

Diana Johnson: The new clauses and amendments have been tabled by the Government and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and they are best able to comment on that. My understanding of
	them is that a term of imprisonment of up to five years is applicable if an order is breached. I am asking a genuine question about whether what we want to achieve through the orders will be achieved by having a criminal standard for a civil order. The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with the Minister when he responds.
	I am conscious of time and of the fact that many other hon. Members want to speak so I will raise only a couple of other issues. Will the Minister explain the situation on appeals and rights of review that might be open to people who are put on the orders? With the scrapping of indeterminate sentences, might we have people on the street subject to the orders who in the past might well have remained in prison, and is the Minister satisfied with that situation?
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) raises an important issue in new clause 7. It is topical given that at the weekend W. H. Smith had to withdraw information and e-books from its website. It has taken too long to obtain acceptance of the fact that viewing child abuse images is an integral part of the abuse process. Only the abusers deny that now. We know that viewing abuse often triggers behaviours in individuals. We know that Stuart Hazel and Mark Bridger had both been viewing legal pornography simulating violent sex and abuse prior to committing appalling crimes. The new clause, which deals with the written form of that abuse, is worth looking at. I hope that the Minister will comment further on that. We need to be careful, because we do not want genuine literature that describes abuse in a totally acceptable way to be captured.

Paul Beresford: If the hon. Lady looks at the new clause, she will see that the second half covers that point, so “Lolita”, for example, would be all right.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm when he responds that that is the legal advice he has received. On that basis, it is really important that the issue is addressed.
	Finally, if the provisions set out in new clause 7 are introduced, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which is now part of the National Crime Agency, will have more work to do. It already struggles with the images it has to look at, so if it will have to deal with the written word as well. I think that there is a case to be made for the Minister addressing how resources for that will be made available.

Nicola Blackwood: I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their opening remarks. I will speak to new clause 5 and the Government amendments relating to prevention orders. I think that by now colleagues will be familiar with my reasons for tabling the new clause. The vast majority of children in this country grow up free from fear, but a vulnerable minority never know a safe or happy childhood. I will never forget sitting in the Old Bailey and listening to truly harrowing evidence of how a violent organised crime gang systematically groomed girls on Oxford’s streets to sell them for sex from as young as 11, plying them with hard drugs to make them
	more compliant to being repeatedly raped by strangers and conditioning them to believe that that was what real relationships were like. Too many colleagues in this House have had the same experience as me, as cases have emerged across the country. Every police force and local authority needs to take positive and proactive preventive action to root out this vile crime.
	Patterns of grooming behaviour are now much better understood. We should be aiming to disrupt the process before it progresses to systematic sexual abuse, because the consequences of failing to intervene are both well documented and appallingly destructive. However, over the past few years case after case has emerged in which child protection agencies in possession of detailed intelligence have seemed unable to intervene.
	In our inquiry into child sexual exploitation, the Home Affairs Committee came to a number of conclusions on why it was happening. The wider conclusions are for another day, but even leading forces, such as Lancashire police, who are proactive not only in innovative investigative techniques, but in disrupting grooming behaviour using methods such as abduction notices, licensing enforcement and dispersal orders, found that a key tool—civil prevention orders—just was not working. They have been on the statute book since 2003, as we have heard, and should be at the forefront of the fight against grooming, but instead they were found to be fundamentally flawed by a 2012 review commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers and written independently by Hugh Davies QC and a team of experts.
	Since 2003 our understanding of patterns of sex offending and disruption techniques has progressed significantly. The purpose of new clause 5 is to reflect that progress and resolve the flaws in the existing orders. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the case for reform and tabled amendments today. Put simply, the reformed orders will protect more vulnerable children from sexual exploitation. That could not be more urgent, because the Children’s Commissioner estimated only this year that 16,500 children are at risk of sexual exploitation, but the prevention orders are still failing to protect them.
	Before explaining how the proposed reforms will address that, let me explain why the current orders are not working. Three orders were legislated for in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: the sexual offences prevention order, the foreign travel order and the risk of sexual harm order. A SOPO can be sought on conviction, or on proof of relevant offending behaviour subsequent to that conviction, to protect a UK adult or child. An FTO can be sought on proof of offending behaviour subsequent to previous sexual conviction and can be sought to protect non-UK children. Despite some misleading coverage of this campaign, the ROSHO is already a pre-conviction order, and it can be sought on proof of two contact offences to prevent serious sexual harm to children under the age of 16. Neither new clause 5 nor the Government’s amendments would create a revolutionary pre-conviction order today. That has been an accepted necessity since 2003.
	No one in this House would disagree with the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, but in no way would that be compromised by these amendments. The case against a defendant would have to be proved to the criminal standard, and a defendant’s procedural rights
	under the proposals would be identical to those in place under the current provisions. The fact of the matter is that a criminal prosecution is not the only mechanism that is necessary to achieve an acceptable level of protection against the sexual abuse of children.
	Criminal prosecution is not always possible. In some situations a prosecution is found not to be in the interests of a child victim, and therefore not in the public interest. In other situations there might be compelling evidence or some technical reason why the evidence is not found to be admissible. In other cases, as we have seen recently, a vulnerable witness might simply find the court process too traumatic and so the case collapses. Anyone who follows the progress of policing and the criminal justice system will recognise that uncomfortable reality. That is why this year there were more than 23,000 reported sexual crimes against children but only 4,051 of them were prosecuted.

Robert Buckland: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the outstanding work she is doing on this issue. I echo her point about the sometimes sad limitations of the criminal justice system, which I have worked in over many years, including dealing with this type of case. I support her case about the criminal standard of proof needed for obtaining the orders and then, if the order is breached, a further criminal procedure in which the criminal standard of proof would apply, so the necessary balances and safeguards are in place.

Nicola Blackwood: Absolutely. To answer the shadow Minister’s question about whether a civil standard would be appropriate, I think that it is important to ensure that we maintain the balance. The reason it was not possible to achieve ROSHOs previously was the combination of two contact offences plus a standard of serious sexual harm. I do not think that the necessary approach now is to lower that standard of proof.
	Some have expressed concern that these orders are intended as an alternative to prosecution, but that is not the case; they are simply a practical necessity alongside prosecution. As a civil order they are no different in nature from other civil orders designed to protect children, such as injunctions or restraining orders in a family court or a barring order in respect of regulated activity.
	If we fail to intervene and protect vulnerable people from foreseeable harm, even if prosecution is not possible, we are failing in our duty of care. The current orders are failing. The requirement to prove two contact offences for the ROSHO produces the absurd result that an offender who sexually touched a 15-year-old twice would be eligible for an order but an offender who raped a four-year-old once would not be—the police would have to wait for the offender to do it again. That is not a sensible way to assess risk.
	Furthermore, given the existence of a specific form of order to prevent foreign travel, ROSHOs have never been used in practice to protect children abroad. The outcome is that non-UK children enjoy a materially lower level of protection than an equivalent child in the UK. I hope that the House will agree that there is absolutely no defence for that disparity. Today’s proposals put an end to that inequality, which must be welcomed.
	There are other basic flaws in the existing regime. Application for all three orders can be made only by the local chief of police, but all too often an offender
	travels ahead of the evidence between force areas, especially in grooming and trafficking cases. The ROSHO applies only in relation to children up to the age of 16, meaning that 16 to 18-year-olds, who might have been caught up in abuse from a much younger age, can only be protected by a SOPO with a much higher threshold.
	Meanwhile, the sexual abuse of children is big business in many destination countries. Hundreds of thousands of children are routinely trafficked for that purpose. Although offenders often have a clear record of offending in different jurisdictions, they can still escape prosecution in each, as many jurisdictions simply fail to prosecute due to different standards of children’s rights or pure corruption. In that context, the FTO threshold for offending behaviour subsequent to a conviction is entirely unworkable. It is unsurprising that since 2005 only 50 FTOs have been granted. In 2007, a year in which 70 British citizens sought consular assistance for child sexual offence arrests, not a single FTO was granted.
	New clause 5 applies solely to children because that is the focus of my campaign, and it is intended to remedy these shortcomings: it abolishes the arbitrary requirement to prove two contact offences; it includes UK and foreign children, offering them equal protection; it allows a senior specialist officer from the National Crime Agency to apply for an order to plug the gap of itinerant offenders travelling ahead of the evidence and it raises the age limit to 18; and it introduces an interim provision to prevent itinerant offenders from fleeing the jurisdiction.
	I am delighted that the Government’s proposed sexual risk order incorporates all these changes and applies them more widely to adults and vulnerable adults, but well-drafted guidance will be crucial to ensure these orders are effectively used as an offender management and disruption tool within a wider strategy of prevention and prosecution. That guidance will need to clarify that offenders under the age of 18 must be treated in an age-appropriate way. This order is much less likely to be appropriate to regulate activity between older teenagers than it would be where, perhaps, an older child presents a serious risk to a much younger child. I hope the guidance will include an understanding of sexually-related activity to take into account documented patterns of grooming and sex tourism.
	Peter Davies, chief executive of CEOP, has called these reforms a very powerful, very useful new tool to prevent harm to children at the earliest possible opportunity, and I am grateful to everybody who has supported the Childhood Lost campaign. Over 100,000 people have signed our petition, and 67 colleagues have signed up to new clause 5. Police, lawyers, the Children’s Commissioner, the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, PACE—Parents against Child Sexual Exploitation—Save the Children, ECPAT, Action for Children, OXCAT and others have all been very vocal in voicing their support, but one particular parent explained why she was supporting the campaign by telling the story of her daughter. She wrote:
	“A group of men I didn’t know befriended my 14 year old daughter, Alice, and started to sexually exploit her. They did this by giving her gifts, taking her to ‘parties’ and giving her drugs and alcohol but all the time with the real threat of actual violence hanging over her. There were rules at the ‘parties’ and girls were beaten if they did not have sex with the men…We knew who they
	were, where they lived and what they were doing; yet nothing was done to stop these men contacting my daughter again and again.”
	She added:
	“I was told it was not enough for action to be taken”
	and continued:
	“Police should have had the power to prevent these men contacting and abusing my daughter…I believe that if the police had been able to use a prevention order children would not have been raped by these men.
	It is terrifying that these men got away with so much for so long and that other children are still trapped in similar situations.”
	Used properly, these orders will protect victims, they will disrupt grooming, and they will prevent sex tourism. These reforms are the right thing to do, and for these reasons I will not press my amendment to a Division, but instead I ask all Members who think the police should be able to step in to protect girls like Alice to support the Government amendments to protect people from child sexual exploitation.

Keith Vaz: May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for not being present for the start of her speech?
	I want to contribute briefly to the debate in order to congratulate the hon. Lady on the incredibly effective work she has done on the issue of grooming. She has a constituency interest, of course, as Operation Bullfinch was going on in Oxford and she has been monitoring what has been happening to the victims, but she was also instrumental in beginning the important Childhood Lost campaign, and I was present at its launch with the Minister, who gave a very effective speech. She has decided not to press her amendment to a Division, but instead has urged the House to support what the Government are doing. I am glad that the Government are following the recommendations of the Select Committee. I think all in the House who are concerned about the grooming of children and the crimes being committed against young people and children will want to see effective action being taken. What we have seen in some of the criminal cases is just the tip of the iceberg, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has now been promoted to be a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, gave very passionate and effective evidence to the Select Committee.
	I support what the hon. Lady has said, I commend her on her marvellous efforts in this area, and I certainly hope the Government will continue to take forward the recommendations of the Select Committee—I see that the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who serve on the Committee, are present. We will revisit our recommendations six months after publication of the report, which will be at about Christmas time, when we will see what progress has been made, but I know that in the Minister we have someone who is determined to do something very serious and radical about stopping those who seek to exploit children, and I fully support what the hon. Lady has said.

Paul Beresford: I echo those congratulations. One thing I have discovered in this House is that it is possible for Back Benchers with a really good cause to push it and persuade a Government—whatever Government. The other thing to be said about this evening’s debate, at
	least until 7 o’clock, is that there is cross-House agreement —and, I hasten to add to the Opposition Front Bench, even the Liberal party is on board—and that has been the case on this area for some considerable time.
	The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is the legislation being changed tonight. Although the Act came in under a Labour Government, I am sure the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who was a Minister at about that time, would agree that there was huge cross-party support and thinking behind the scenes. Indeed, I was on the Home Office taskforce that did a lot of the work leading up to the child protection part of that Act.
	Tonight, however, I want to focus on my new clause 7, which would amend section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, entitled “Possession of prohibited images of children”. Those prohibited images are pornographic images, and they may take various forms, including photographs, pseudo-photographs, cartoons and computer-generated images. They may be moving or still, too. The link between the possession and the viewing and actual action against children is generally accepted, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said from the Opposition Front Bench.
	The ludicrous situation is that an individual will be liable for prosecution for possession of photographs, pseudo-photographs, computer-generated images and so on, but not for the written word describing child sex abuse in pornographic, and often lurid, detail. All, including the written word in this form, are designed by the individuals concerned for sexual stimulation over the sexual abuse of children. If an individual wrote from his or her imagination a graphic description of child sexual abuse—which could, and often is, more emotive and more graphic than any picture of any form—even if he or she described one of those pictures or cartoons, that individual could not be prosecuted for the possession of this graphic material, even though for many of these individuals the written word is more powerful.
	Let me give a simple example that I gave in speaking to my ten-minute rule Bill last Wednesday. CEOP provided me with the details of a man from Kent who wrote describing his wish to kidnap an early-teenage girl, strip her, sexually abuse her in an exceptionally unpleasant way and then, in an even more unpleasant way which I will not detail, slowly kill this girl. It is horrific, especially as his writings then inspired this individual to actually carry it out. He is in prison, hopefully for a very long time if not for ever, but the teenager is gone. One would have thought that the early discovery of the writings could have helped, but if the police had found them they would have had no power to act. This new clause has developed out of discussions with members past and present of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit and with the team leading CEOP in this area, and is supported by it, including Peter Davies.
	CEOP last year published a research document on paedophile cases. It is mentioned in the report, almost as a sideline, that some offenders possess graphic notes or writings of child abuse. The Home Secretary has written to me on this matter stating she is asking for a report from CEOP on the need for this change. As the Minister will recall, some months ago both CEOP and the head of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit
	joined me in making a presentation to him. They brought some of the literature; I did not. The officers supported the need for this change. They explained that they had seen volumes of material in their search for illegal child abuse photographs. As the possession of such written material is not illegal, they obviously disregarded it, seeking only, at high speed and using computer technology, child abuse images.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about some horrific material, and I am listening carefully to his case. He is far more expert in this area than I am. How does this link in with the Obscene Publications Act 1959? Does not that provide some protection in this area?

Paul Beresford: No, it does not. I am looking at changes to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, not to the Obscene Publications Act. Otherwise I would wander into deep mire, which I am sure that Liberal Members would help me wallow in further.

Robert Buckland: The Obscene Publications Act was very much on my mind as well. Very often this material is generated by the offenders themselves and is privately retained, so I think it would fall foul of some of the definitions in that rather elderly piece of legislation. The material that is obtained can sometimes be used as incriminating evidence to help prove the general character and intent of individuals with an interest in child abuse, who are sadly far too prevalent. Do the police find difficulty in using that material as incriminating evidence, or do they want more information?

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend goes halfway towards putting the case. He is right, but the police tell me that they do not really use that Act. They need this one tiny change in the legislation to add to the opportunities for prosecution and to use when they bring these individuals to court.
	I was told that I needed to tweak the wording, so I did something absolutely outrageous: I invited the Attorney-General for a cup of coffee, not even a glass of wine, and he ran a cursory glance, if Attorney-Generals run cursory glances over anything, at the wording and seemed to feel that it was satisfactory. I am not going to hold him to that, as it would probably cost me a glass of wine.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has given the House a valuable insight into how, for at least 10 years, he has followed these issues through with successive Ministers and very persuasively engaged them in the merits of his argument. I would be very happy to support his new clause, because graphic and extreme written material about child abuse is every bit as abusive as an image of child abuse. He is absolutely right to try to ensure that this loophole in the law is closed so that this is a very clear and separate offence.

Paul Beresford: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to have his support. When he was a Minister he was receptive to many of the changes that I suggested. He tweaked them so that they went through to another place without my name attached, but the effect was still the same.
	Some have questioned whether genuine, legitimate literature such as “Lolita” would be covered by section 62(5) of the 2009 Act. To be completely clear, the written material that I am targeting can be as shocking as images described as level 5 based on the classification used by the courts. The section refers to prohibited images that it describes as
	“pornographic…grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise…obscene”
	and
	“of such a nature that it must be reasonably assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
	In certain cases, that description, which is applied to photographs, can, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said, be applied equally to the written word. Such material is quite different and it is horrific. Its distribution is prohibited, and so should be its possession.

Andrew Smith: I strongly support the remarks of and the campaign by my friend, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). Her initiative and that of the Childhood Lost campaign, which I have strongly supported, will be especially warmly welcomed by my constituents and hers, who are horrified at what was uncovered by the Operation Bullfinch investigation and prosecutions in Oxford. They are very worried that it was not possible to stop these crimes happening earlier and that even now there are people it has not been possible to bring to justice before the courts because of the difficulty in giving evidence. Anything that can be a step forward in stopping these horrific crimes must be greatly welcomed.
	I want to underline an enormously important point that the hon. Lady made about the strength and clarity of guidance that is given on the use of these orders and the importance of each local area having the wherewithal to carry them into effect. In the wake of Operation Bullfinch, in Oxford we have had established the Kingfisher unit, which she and I jointly visited. It brings together all the relevant agencies and undertakes preventive and educational work as well as helping to bring cases to justice. We need such units in every part of the country. There has to be the strongest guidance to ensure that these orders are going to be used. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that there will be close reporting and monitoring on the extent and areas of their use so that this House can see the progress that we all very much hope the bringing into law of these orders will represent.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who gave a fantastic example of her grasp of the details of this subject and her attitude to it. I served with her on the Committee during its inquiry into child sexual exploitation in response to localised grooming, when we all shared experiences that will stay with me and, I am sure, with her for the rest of our lives. Some of the things we saw and heard about were absolutely horrific. It is to her great credit that she has responded in a very measured way to try to address this. Her speech was exemplary in that regard.
	We all think that abuse of children and of any vulnerable adult is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is a heinous crime. Everybody in this House opposes it and
	wants to see it ended; that is absolutely clear. It is also clear that a crime of this nature is a crime regardless of where it happens. When people go overseas to abuse children, that cannot be okay just because those children happen not to be British. That much is absolutely, completely and utterly clear.
	The hon. Lady outlined very well a number of improvements in what the Government are suggesting. For example, it seems odd that a rule was brought in saying that there must be two offences before a breach of something became a serious matter. I struggle to think of any other examples where someone would have to do something twice before there was perceived to be a problem. It is absolutely right to get rid of that.
	I was very surprised by several of the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). There is a danger that we get trapped in the idea that we must do anything to protect children. It becomes a mantra: “Won’t somebody think of the children?” We do need to protect children but in a way that will work and will not cause us problems. It is an important principle that people do not get jailed based on anything less than the criminal standard of proof. I was genuinely horrified by her suggestion that it would be worth considering something else. I accept that this is a deeply emotional area, and we all want to protect children. I hope that on reflection she will reconsider some of her comments about my perspective on that. We all want that protection to happen, but we must also ensure that we do not break some of the principles of the rule of law.

Diana Johnson: In discussing civil orders I merely raised a question about the appropriate standard of proof. I was not suggesting that we should move to a lower standard but merely questioning whether keeping the higher standard was the best thing to do and asking the Minister and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) to reflect on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express that properly when he refers to my views and not try to suggest that I was putting forward any other view.

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. My own view is that I would not even want to consider the idea of jailing somebody without going through the criminal process, because that is a fundamental position of our law. She was indeed only questioning it, but I am still surprised that it would even be questioned.

Mark Reckless: The record will of course show this, but does my hon. Friend agree that his point was to raise a concern that Labour Members might allow someone to be jailed for five years on the basis of balance of probabilities? All we heard back from the shadow Minister was an ad-hominem, or at least ad-party, attack on him, as though only a Liberal Democrat could object to such a thing. That is extraordinary.

Julian Huppert: I agree factually with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to dwell on that, because it detracts from the excellent work that has been done by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and so many others.
	Questions still need to be answered for us to understand the details and the guidance, as the hon. Lady said. That is critical. I listened carefully to her comments about the idea that not everyone subject to an order could be jailed, but I would hope that that would be the principal aim. I think we would all like people who abuse children or vulnerable adults to go to jail, rather than receive a civil order. The gap between the two should be closed as much as possible.
	I am concerned that there will still be strange applications. The case of Simon Walsh was interesting—it was surprising that it was brought in the first place— and he was eventually found not guilty, but I think he might have been caught by new clause 5, so I remain concerned about how we can avoid that happening when people have been found explicitly not guilty. I think we will have a chance to look at that and clarify the details.
	Finally, I accept new clause 5 and have no problems with it becoming part of the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Lady on tabling it and the Minister on accepting it. One of my key findings during the Home Affairs Committee inquiry was that, yes, there is room for legislative change, but the vast majority of the problem was caused by organisational failures and by people not trusting or listening to young people—a series of things that will not be fixed by legislation. We must not delude ourselves that passing a law that makes certain behaviour illegal and that implements orders will, in and of itself, make the difference needed.

Simon Danczuk: I am sorry that I was not able to be here for the beginning of the debate; unfortunately, I had Select Committee business. I have no doubt that I would have enjoyed the contributions, particularly the alleged verbal attack on the Liberal Democrats.
	I want to discuss two things: first, the great contribution made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and, secondly, the Government’s proposals on sexual predators and the use of the orders to prevent such behaviour.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her exceptionally good campaign. Members will be aware of what has become known as the Rochdale grooming scandal. The Home Affairs Committee did excellent work on that and other cases of on-street grooming. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) has also done much to raise concerns about such issues. The campaign run by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has been second to none, and that is a credit to her. It will play an important part—this should not be underestimated—in helping to protect young people from sexual predators, such as those we have seen not just in Rochdale, Oxford and Rotherham, but in many other towns and cities across the country.
	I am pleased with and welcome the Government’s proposals, which consolidate and strengthen the provisions put in place by the previous Labour Government. Had the orders been in place some years ago, I am convinced that, had agencies such as Greater Manchester police used them, they would have stopped a lot of the abuse that occurred in Rochdale. We now know that there was a failure by Rochdale council social services and its exceptionally unhealthy culture at the time.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend was one of the most vocal in the criticisms of the way in which Rochdale council operated. Is he satisfied that the council understands the seriousness of the situation and that, under its new chief executive, it is putting in place the proper processes to make sure that the situation is monitored? It cannot stop it happening again, but is my hon. Friend satisfied that things have changed for the better?

Simon Danczuk: I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s intervention. I am more satisfied than ever that Rochdale council is playing its part in tackling on-street grooming.
	It is important to note that we still await the serious case review on Rochdale. I would think that it is imminent, so it should be available in the next month or two. I think it will raise questions—not much light has been cast on this—about the performance of Greater Manchester police and whether it acted effectively enough in terms of intervening. I suspect that the serious case review will show some failings in that regard. That relates to the proposals under discussion because, had they been in place at the time, not only would the tools have been available to the police, but an emphasis would have been placed on their need to use them.

Nicola Blackwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the orders are welcome and will allow police forces to intervene earlier, but they must sit within a wider strategy of prevention and prosecution if we are to have any hope of genuinely tackling child sexual exploitation in the long term.

Simon Danczuk: I completely agree. Much of this is about not just the tools available, but the culture in the local agencies, whether they be the council, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police or the NHS and its primary care services.
	Finally, I welcome the proposals. This is Parliament at its best. We are amending existing legislation, not creating something completely new. This is about listening to the concerns of Back Benchers and their campaigns, and about getting cross-party support, which I welcome.

Damian Green: I thank hon. Members from all parties, not just for their universal support for the measures, but for the sensitive and sensible tone with which they have conducted the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will by now be blushing because of the amount of praise she has received. She should note that it has not been conventional praise—it is not a case of the House being conventionally polite—but that everyone, from all parties, really means it. She and the charities she has rightly mentioned have conducted an exemplary campaign on an issue of great contemporary importance. It is a subject that a few people have cared about hugely for ages, and now the whole country understands the important and urgent need to take effective action, which is precisely what we are seeking to do.

Mark Reckless: The Minister has said that a few people campaigned on the issue. Does he agree that others failed to follow through on this because they did not understand and recognise what was happening, and that some people perceived that earlier than they did?

Damian Green: Clearly, there were widespread failures in a number of institutions and that is what a large number of people are seeking to rectify now. That brings me on naturally to my next point—this addresses many of the questions that have been rightly asked and the powerful point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—which is that, although what we are doing is necessary, it is certainly not sufficient to believe that it will eradicate this terrible crime.
	We seek to protect children as a high priority beyond legislation, and it is the need for that much more widespread change of attitude and culture in institutions that informs the work of the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People, which I chair and whose membership is indicative of the widespread group of people necessary to act on this terrible crime. It includes not only a number of Departments, such as the Home Office to deal with the criminal elements and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and his representatives, but the health service, local government and the police, which have important roles to play. The group also includes many non-governmental organisations and charities. Such organisations often sit outside governmental structures and shout through their megaphones about how Government should be doing things better. It seems to me that in a matter of such seriousness and urgency, having them sitting at the table from the start saying, “This is how you should do things,” is likely to produce a much faster and more sensitive response to the problems.
	The group will address some of the issues that have been brought up in this debate, such as rehabilitation, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) rightly mentioned. There is a wide range of issues that it could deal with, but we have set four immediate priority areas. Our top priority is prevention because, as we all agree, the best way to solve this problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
	The second priority is the attitude of the police. Extra training is required so that police officers who are approached with evidence of child abuse and particularly of grooming like that seen in Oxford, Rochdale and other areas are better trained than they have been to assess the credibility of the story, rather than of the witness. One of the problems is that many of the young girls who come forward are in care or in trouble with the police and are likely to be involved in drugs and alcohol, not least because they have been put on them by the men who are grooming them. They may not, therefore, appear at first to be the most credible or compelling of witnesses. Looking beyond the individual in front of them to the terrible and frightening crime that lies beyond is a skill that police officers can learn through training. The police are trying hard to do that across the regional police forces and through the National Crime Agency.
	The third priority is the criminal justice response. The House has discussed before the necessity for witnesses not to be intimidated out of giving necessary evidence by the traditional court procedures. Before the end of the year, we will pilot the use of pre-recorded video evidence by vulnerable witnesses in three centres, so that the full panoply of the court, which often puts
	witnesses off and intimidates them, is not there. We will be piloting that shortly to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place for the defendant.

Ann Coffey: On the support that is available in court for vulnerable witnesses, does the Minister agree that it is not acceptable that registered intermediaries are appointed in so few cases? If we are to support vulnerable witnesses, particularly child witnesses, we must make it a matter of course that registered intermediaries are appointed at the earliest possible stage, even before the first police interview.

Damian Green: Appointing registered intermediaries before the first police interview may be difficult in practical terms, but I accept the hon. Lady’s general point that we need better support mechanisms for vulnerable witnesses. Some of those mechanisms will involve institutional change, as I have said, but the provision of intermediaries may also be required.
	The fourth priority of the group is online protection and, in particular, attacking the use of vile child abuse images online. There is therefore a lot of work to do beyond this legislation.
	I will respond to some of the individual points that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) asked about close reporting on the monitoring and extent of the powers. Various other Members talked about the necessity for guidance. The Government amendments require statutory guidance to be issued. We will work closely with the police, the NCA and others in considering the best way to apply the new orders.
	We have had a vigorous debate about the use of the criminal standard of proof. If I may try to reconcile what has been the only scratchy part of this debate, there is a balance to be struck. We could apply the civil standard to the new order, but one consequence would be that a breach of the order would not be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison. I hope that those who are doubtful about the level of proof will accept that what we are proposing strikes the right balance, given the risk of harm to children and vulnerable adults. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon explained, it is not the criminal standard of proof that led to the disappointing use of the original three orders in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about legislation on the grooming of children on the internet. The orders that we are discussing may be used to restrict internet use, so they will hopefully have a direct effect on that type of criminal behaviour. However, it is worth repeating that the principle that what is criminal offline is criminal online always applies. There is no separate law that applies to the online world. If something is a crime in the real world, it is a crime in the online world. As I have said, cybercrime is one of the four immediate priorities of the national group.
	I was asked about the appeal mechanism. An individual who is the subject of either kind of order will be able to appeal against the making of that order under the proposed new sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In addition, after an order is made, there is the right to apply for it to be varied or discharged. I hope that the appropriate safeguards are in place for people to make appeals.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the protections that allow defendants to apply for variation and discharge. However, I notice that under the Government amendments, only local chief officers are able to apply for the variation or discharge of an order. I understand that that is intended to maintain the management of the offender at a local level. However, the NCA might come across evidence of different forms of offending and might want to get involved in an application for variation. I hope that the guidance will make it clear how that will work.

Damian Green: That is a valid point. To deal with the practical point, once an order is made, the supervision of it will be in the hands of the local police. It is sensible for them to be on the front line of making any application to vary the order. Obviously, the NCA will make it a habit to work closely with local forces when they are working together in specific areas, as they will be in this case. It should become entirely habitual for the NCA to pass evidence to local forces. I know that the leadership of the NCA is determined to do that. There needs to be better connections between policing at the national and local levels, and we are seeking to address that problem. My hon. Friend should rest assured that she is not the only person who will be watching closely to ensure that that co-operation takes place.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) explained, new clause 7 seeks to extend the offence of possessing a prohibited image of a child in section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That offence is committed when a person possesses a pornographic non-photographic image of a child that is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene. My hon. Friend, together with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), wants to extend that offence to include the written word. I add my thanks to the many that have been given this evening to both Members for their personal efforts in the fight to protect children from abuse. Their motivation for the new clause is entirely laudable, and it is quite right for the House to have the opportunity to discuss it.
	Written material that describes the sexual abuse of children is undoubtedly distasteful and disturbing. As my hon. Friend said, he and I have had many discussions and meetings on the matter, and I put it to him that criminalising the possession of the written word in any context is a significant step, and we should pause before taking it. In our view, it is a step that should be taken only once we know the full extent of the problem. In this case, there are two particular requirements. First, there must be evidence that possession of such material is causing harm to children. Secondly, it must be practical for the police—in this case CEOP—to go through all the material on people’s computers. It is much more difficult to do that with the written word than with images. As my hon. Friend said, there is special technology that allows speedy checks of images. We are working on improving that technology, but it is more difficult in the case of the written word. If, after considering those caveats, we conclude that there is a case for changing the law, we will need to ensure that we go about it in the right way so that it has some practical effect and improves child protection.
	New clause 7 touches on a number of sensitive issues, and any changes that we bring about need to be both proportionate and effective. I cannot commend it to the
	House today, but I absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to continue considering thoroughly whether the law should be changed in the way that they suggest. As my hon. Friend said, CEOP has already provided some information, and my officials continue to work with it to investigate the issue further and get the full body of evidence that is necessary if we are to take the drastic step suggested. As soon as we reach a conclusion on that, we will decide what action to take. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to play a role in gathering evidence and discussing it with Ministers, but I hope that he will agree not to press new clause 7 to a Division.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon on her commitment and her drive to ensure that we have the necessary powers to protect children from sexual harm. I now know that she and the House agree that the Government amendments will deliver what new clause 5 was intended to achieve, and more, so I commend them to the House.

Paul Beresford: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: No, you do not get another opportunity to speak, Sir Paul, but I assume that you do not wish to press new clause 7.

Paul Beresford: A reasonable assumption.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you. Maybe next time it would be helpful to make a point of order.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc

‘(1) Schedule [Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003] (amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) has effect.
	(2) In section 142 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (extent etc)—
	(a) in subsection (2) (provisions that extend to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales), for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
	“(c) sections 80 to 88, 89 to 91, 92 to 96, 96B to 103, 122F and 130 to 136ZB;
	(ca) Part 2A;”;
	(b) after that subsection there is inserted—
	“(2A) Sections 110, 117A, 119 and 123 to 129 extend only to Northern Ireland.”
	(c) In subsection (3) (provisions that extend to Scotland, as well as England and Wales) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—after that subsection there is inserted—
	“(a) sections 80 to 88, 89 to 91, 92, 94 to 96, 97 to 103, 122F, 130 to 132 and 133 to 136ZB;”;
	“(3A) Sections 88A to 88I, 96A, 111A, 117B, 120 and 121 extend only to Scotland.
	(3B) Sections 104 to 109, 111, 112 to 117, 118 and 122 extend to Northern Ireland and Scotland but not to England and Wales.”’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Saving and transitional provision

‘(1) In this section—
	“the 2003 Act” means the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
	“existing order” means—
	(a) a sexual offences prevention order under section 104 of the 2003 Act;(b) a foreign travel order under section 114 of that Act;(c) a risk of sexual harm order under section 123 of that Act;
	“new order” means—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order (made under section 103A of the 2003 Act, inserted by Schedule [
	Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
	]);(b) a sexual risk order (made under section 122A of that Act, inserted by that Schedule);
	“old order” means—
	(a) a restraining order under section 5A of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;(b) a sex offender order under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	(2) The repeal or amendment by this Act of sections 104 to 122 or sections 123 to 129 of the 2003 Act does not apply in relation to—
	(a) an application made before the commencement day for an existing order;
	(b) an existing order (whether made before or after that day) applied for before that day;
	(c) anything done in connection with such an application or order.
	(3) The following sections of the 2003 Act inserted by Schedule [Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003] apply (as appropriate) to an old order as they apply to a new order—
	(a) section 103E (variation, renewal and discharge of sexual harm prevention order);
	(b) section 103I (offence of breach of sexual harm prevention order);
	(c) section 122E (variation, renewal and discharge of sexual risk order);
	(d) section 122H (offence of breach of sexual risk order).
	(4) As from the commencement day there may be no variation of an existing order or an old order that extends the period of the order or of any of its provisions.
	(5) At the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the commencement day—
	(a) in relation to any existing order or old order that is still in force, sections 103E and 103I of the 2003 Act or sections 122E and 122H of that Act (as appropriate) have effect, with any necessary modifications (and with any modifications specified in an order under section 152(6) of this Act), as if the provisions of the order were provisions of a new order;
	(b) subsections (2) and (3) cease to have effect.
	(6) In this section “commencement day” means the day on which this section comes into force.’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	New Schedule 1
	‘SCHEDULE

Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Introduction
	1 Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (notification and orders) is amended as set out in this Schedule.
	Sexual harm prevention orders
	2 After section 103 there is inserted—
	“Sexual harm prevention orders (England and Wales)
	103A Sexual harm prevention orders: applications and grounds
	(1) A court may make an order under this section (a “sexual harm prevention order”) in respect of a person (“the defendant”) where subsection (2) or (3) applies to the defendant.
	(2) This subsection applies to the defendant where—
	(a) the court deals with the defendant in respect of—
	(i) an offence listed in Schedule 3 or 5, or
	(ii) a finding that the defendant is not guilty of an offence listed in Schedule 3 or 5 by reason of insanity, or
	(iii) a finding that the defendant is under a disability and has done the act charged against the defendant in respect of an offence listed in Schedule 3 or 5,
	and
	(b) the court is satisfied that it is necessary to make a sexual harm prevention order, for the purpose of—
	(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(3) This subsection applies to the defendant where—
	(a) an application under subsection (4) has been made in respect of the defendant and it is proved on the application that the defendant is a qualifying offender, and
	(b) the court is satisfied that the defendant’s behaviour since the appropriate date makes it necessary to make a sexual harm prevention order, for the purpose of—
	(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(4) A chief officer of police or the Director General of the National Crime Agency (“the Director General”) may by complaint to a magistrates’ court apply for a sexual harm prevention order in respect of a person if it appears to the chief officer or the Director General that—
	(a) the person is a qualifying offender, and
	(b) the person has since the appropriate date acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made.
	(5) A chief officer of police may make an application under subsection (4) only in respect of a person—
	(a) who resides in the chief officer’s police area, or
	(b) who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.
	(6) An application under subsection (4) may be made to any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes—
	(a) any part of a relevant police area, or
	(b) any place where it is alleged that the person acted in a way mentioned in subsection (4)(b).
	(7) The Director General must as soon as practicable notify the chief officer of police for a relevant police area of any application that the Director has made under subsection (4).
	(8) In this section “relevant police area” means—
	(a) where the applicant is a chief officer of police, the officer’s police area;
	(b) where the applicant is the Director General—
	(i) the police area where the person in question resides, or
	(ii) a police area which the Director General believes the person is in or is intending to come to.
	103B Section 103A: supplemental
	(1) In section 103A—
	“appropriate date”, in relation to a qualifying offender, means the date or (as the case may be) the first date on which the offender was convicted, found or cautioned as mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) below;
	“child” means a person under 18;
	“the public” means the public in the United Kingdom;
	“sexual harm” from a person means physical or psychological harm caused—
	(a) by the person committing one or more offences listed in Schedule 3, or(b) (in the context of harm outside the United Kingdom) by the person doing, outside the United Kingdom, anything which would constitute an offence listed in Schedule 3 if done in any part of the United Kingdom;
	“qualifying offender” means a person within subsection (2) or (3) below;
	“vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from physical or psychological harm is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise.
	(2) A person is within this subsection if, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, the person—
	(a) has been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 (other than at paragraph 60) or in Schedule 5,
	(b) has been found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity,
	(c) has been found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence, or
	(d) has been cautioned in respect of such an offence.
	(3) A person is within this subsection if, under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom and whether before or after the commencement of this Part—
	(a) the person has been convicted of a relevant offence (whether or not the person has been punished for it),
	(b) a court exercising jurisdiction under that law has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is not guilty by reason of insanity,
	(c) such a court has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is under a disability and did the act charged against the person in respect of the offence, or
	(d) the person has been cautioned in respect of a relevant offence.
	(4) In subsection (3), “relevant offence” means an act which—
	(a) constituted an offence under the law in force in the country concerned, and
	(b) would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 3 (other than at paragraph 60) or in Schedule 5 if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom.
	For this purpose an act punishable under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence under that law, however it is described in that law.
	(5) For the purposes of section 103A, acts, behaviour, convictions and findings include those occurring before the commencement of this Part.
	(6) Subject to subsection (7), on an application under section 103A(4) the condition in subsection (4)(b) above (where relevant) is to be taken as met unless, not later than rules of court may provide, the defendant serves on the applicant a notice—
	(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act concerned, the condition is not in the defendant’s opinion met,
	(b) showing the grounds for that opinion, and
	(c) requiring the applicant to prove that the condition is met.
	(7) The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defendant to require the applicant to prove that the condition is met without service of a notice under subsection (6).
	(8) Subsection (9) applies for the purposes of section 103A and this section.
	(9) In construing any reference to an offence listed in Schedule 3, any condition subject to which an offence is so listed that relates—
	(a) to the way in which the defendant is dealt with in respect of an offence so listed or a relevant finding (as defined by section 132(9)), or
	(b) to the age of any person,
	is to be disregarded.
	103C SHPOs: effect
	(1) A sexual harm prevention order prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
	(2) Subject to section 103D(1), a prohibition contained in a sexual harm prevention order has effect—
	(a) for a fixed period, specified in the order, of at least 5 years, or
	(b) until further order.
	(3) A sexual harm prevention order—
	(a) may specify that some of its prohibitions have effect until further order and some for a fixed period;
	(b) may specify different periods for different prohibitions.
	(4) The only prohibitions that may be included in a sexual harm prevention order are those necessary for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(5) In subsection (4) “the public”, “sexual harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 103B(1).
	(6) Where a court makes a sexual harm prevention order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order ceases to have effect.
	103D SHPOs: prohibitions on foreign travel
	(1) A prohibition on foreign travel contained in a sexual harm prevention order must be for a fixed period of not more than 5 years.
	(2) A “prohibition on foreign travel” means—
	(a) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom named or described in the order,
	(b) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom other than a country named or described in the order, or
	(c) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom.
	(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a prohibition on foreign travel from being extended for a further period (of no more than 5 years each time) under section 103E.
	(4) A sexual harm prevention order that contains a prohibition within subsection (2)(c) must require the defendant to surrender all of the defendant’s passports at a police station specified in the order—
	(a) on or before the date when the prohibition takes effect, or
	(b) within a period specified in the order.
	(5) Any passports surrendered must be returned as soon as reasonably practicable after the person ceases to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order containing a prohibition within subsection (2)(c) (unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order).
	(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in relation to—
	(a) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country outside the United Kingdom if the passport has been returned to those authorities;
	(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of an international organisation if the passport has been returned to that organisation.
	(7) In this section “passport” means—
	(a) a United Kingdom passport within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971;
	(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
	(c) a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.
	103E SHPOs: variations, renewals and discharges
	(1) A person within subsection (2) may apply to the appropriate court for an order varying, renewing or discharging a sexual harm prevention order.
	(2) The persons are—
	(a) the defendant;
	(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides;
	(c) a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come to, that officer’s police area;
	(d) where the order was made on an application by a chief officer of police under section103A(4), that officer.
	(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made—
	(a) where the appropriate court is the Crown Court, in accordance with rules of court;
	(b) in any other case, by complaint.
	(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection (2), may make any order, varying, renewing or discharging the sexual harm prevention order, that the court considers appropriate.
	(5) An order may be renewed, or varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant, only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	Any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose.
	(6) The court must not discharge an order before the end of 5 years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the defendant and—
	(a) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, that chief officer, or
	(b) in any other case, the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides.
	(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to an order containing a prohibition on foreign travel and no other prohibitions.
	(8) In this section “the appropriate court” means—
	(a) where the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal made the sexual harm prevention order, the Crown Court;
	(b) where a magistrates’ court made the order, that court, a magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief
	officer of police, any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes any part of the chief officer’s police area;
	(c) where a youth court made the order, that court, a youth court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any youth court whose commission area includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.
	103F Interim SHPOs
	(1) This section applies where an application under section 103A(4) (“the main application”) has not been determined.
	(2) An application for an order under this section (“an interim sexual harm prevention order”)—
	(a) may be made by the complaint by which the main application is made, or
	(b) if the main application has been made, may be made by the person who has made that application, by complaint to the court to which that application has been made.
	(3) The court may, if it considers it just to do so, make an interim sexual harm prevention order, prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
	(4) Such an order—
	(a) has effect only for a fixed period, specified in the order;
	(b) ceases to have effect, if it has not already done so, on the determination of the main application.
	(5) The applicant or the defendant may by complaint apply to the court that made the interim sexual harm prevention order for the order to be varied, renewed or discharged.
	103G SHPOs and interim SHPOs: notification requirements
	(1) Where—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order is made in respect of a defendant who was a relevant offender immediately before the making of the order, and
	(b) the defendant would (apart from this subsection) cease to be subject to the notification requirements of this Part while the order (as renewed from time to time) has effect,
	the defendant remains subject to the notification requirements.
	(2) Where a sexual harm prevention order is made in respect of a defendant who was not a relevant offender immediately before the making of the order—
	(a) the order causes the defendant to become subject to the notification requirements of this Part from the making of the order until the order (as renewed from time to time) ceases to have effect, and
	(b) this Part applies to the defendant, subject to the modification set out in subsection (3).
	(3) The “relevant date” is the date of service of the order.
	(4) Subsections (1) to (3) apply to an interim sexual harm prevention order as if references to a sexual harm prevention order were references to an interim sexual harm prevention order, and with the omission of “(as renewed from time to time)” in both places.
	(5) Where—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order is in effect in relation to a relevant sex offender (within the meaning of section 88A), and
	(b) by virtue of section 88F or 88G the relevant sex offender ceases to be subject to the notification requirements of this Part,
	the sexual harm prevention order ceases to have effect.
	(6) On an application for a sexual harm prevention order made by a chief officer of police, the court must make a notification order in respect of the defendant (either in addition to or instead of a sexual harm prevention order) if—
	(a) the applicant invites the court to do so, and
	(b) it is proved that the conditions in section 97(2) to (4) are met.
	(7) On an application for an interim sexual harm prevention order made by a chief officer of police, the court may, if it considers it just to do so, make an interim notification order (either in addition to or instead of an interim sexual harm prevention order).
	103H SHPOs and interim SHPOs: appeals
	(1) A defendant may appeal against the making of a sexual harm prevention order—
	(a) where the order was made by virtue of section103A(2)(a)(i), as if the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for the offence;
	(b) where the order was made by virtue of section103A(2)(a)(ii) or (iii), as if the defendant had been convicted of the offence and the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for that offence;
	(c) where the order was made on an application under section103A(4), to the Crown Court.
	(2) A defendant may appeal to the Crown Court against the making of an interim sexual harm prevention order.
	(3) A defendant may appeal against the making of an order under section 103E, or the refusal to make such an order—
	(a) where the application for such an order was made to the Crown Court, to the Court of Appeal;
	(b) in any other case, to the Crown Court.
	(4) On an appeal under subsection (1)(c), (2) or (3)(b), the Crown Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
	(5) Any order made by the Crown Court on an appeal under subsection (1)(c) or (2) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a magistrates’ court) is for the purposes of section 103E(8) or 103F (5) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the Crown Court).
	103I Offence: breach of SHPO or interim SHPO etc
	(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order,
	(b) an interim sexual harm prevention order,
	(c) a sexual offences prevention order,
	(d) an interim sexual offences prevention order, or
	(e) a foreign travel order,
	commits an offence.
	(2) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed under section 103D(4).
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
	(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.
	103J SHPOs and interim SHPOs: guidance
	(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to chief officers of police and to the Director General of the National Crime Agency in relation to the exercise by them of their powers with regard to sexual harm prevention orders and interim sexual harm prevention orders.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the guidance issued under subsection (1).
	(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
	Sexual offences prevention orders and foreign travel orders
	3 (1) Sections 104 to 122 (sexual offences prevention orders and foreign travel orders) are repealed.
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.
	Sexual risk orders
	4 Before section 123 there is inserted—
	“Sexual risk orders (England and Wales)
	122A Sexual risk orders: applications, grounds and effect
	(1) A chief officer of police or the Director General of the National Crime Agency (“the Director General”) may by complaint to a magistrates’ court apply for an order under this section (a “sexual risk order”) in respect of a person (“the defendant”) if it appears to the chief officer or the Director General that the following condition is met.
	(2) The condition is that the defendant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, done an act of a sexual nature as a result of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for a sexual risk order to be made.
	(3) A chief officer of police may make an application under subsection (1) only in respect of a person—
	(a) who resides in the chief officer’s police area, or
	(b) who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.
	(4) An application under subsection (1) may be made to any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes—
	(a) any part of a relevant police area, or
	(b) any place where it is alleged that the person acted in a way mentioned in subsection (2).
	(5) The Director General must as soon as practicable notify the chief officer of police for a relevant police area of any application that the Director has made under subsection (1).
	(6) On an application under subsection (1), the court may make a sexual risk order if it is satisfied that the defendant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, done an act of a sexual nature as a result of which it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(7) Such an order—
	(a) prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order;
	(b) has effect for a fixed period (not less than 2 years) specified in the order or until further order.
	(8) A sexual risk order may specify different periods for different prohibitions.
	(9) The only prohibitions that may be imposed are those necessary for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	(10) Where a court makes a sexual risk order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order ceases to have effect.
	122B Section 122A: interpretation
	(1) In section 122A—
	“child” means a person under 18;
	“harm” from the defendant means physical or psychological harm caused by the defendant doing an act of a sexual nature;
	“the public” means the public in the United Kingdom;
	“vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from
	physical or psychological harm is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise.
	(2) In that section “relevant police area” means—
	(a) where the applicant is a chief officer of police, the officer’s police area;
	(b) where the applicant is the Director General of the National Crime Agency—
	(i) the police area where the person in question resides, or
	(ii) a police area which the Director General believes the person is in or is intending to come to.
	122C Sexual risk orders: prohibitions on foreign travel
	(1) A prohibition on foreign travel contained in a sexual risk order must not be for a period of more than 5 years.
	(2) A “prohibition on foreign travel” means—
	(a) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom named or described in the order,
	(b) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom other than a country named or described in the order, or
	(c) a prohibition on travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom.
	(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a prohibition on foreign travel from being extended for a further period (of no more than 5 years each time) under section 122D.
	(4) A sexual risk order that contains a prohibition within subsection (2)(c) must require the defendant to surrender all of the defendant’s passports at a police station specified in the order—
	(a) on or before the date when the prohibition takes effect, or
	(b) within a period specified in the order.
	(5) Any passports surrendered must be returned as soon as reasonably practicable after the person ceases to be subject to a sexual risk order containing such a prohibition (unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order).
	(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in relation to—
	(a) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country outside the United Kingdom if the passport has been returned to those authorities;
	(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of an international organisation if the passport has been returned to that organisation.
	(7) In this section “passport” means—
	(a) a United Kingdom passport within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971;
	(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
	(c) a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.
	122D Sexual risk order: variations, renewals and discharges
	(1) A person within subsection (2) may by complaint to the appropriate court apply for an order varying, renewing or discharging a sexual risk order.
	(2) The persons are—
	(a) the defendant;
	(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides;
	(c) a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come to, that officer’s police area;
	(a) where the order was made on an application by a chief officer of police, that officer.
	(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection
	(2), may make any order, varying, renewing or discharging the sexual risk order, that the court considers appropriate.
	(4) An order may be renewed, or varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant, only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
	(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
	(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
	Any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose.
	(5) The court must not discharge an order before the end of 2 years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the defendant and—
	(a) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, that chief officer, or
	(b) in any other case, the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides.
	(6) Section 122B(1) applies for the purposes of this section.
	(7) In this section “the appropriate court” means—
	(a) the court which made the sexual risk order;
	(b) a magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides;
	(c) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes any part of the officer’s police area.
	122E Interim sexual risk orders
	(1) This section applies where an application for a sexual risk order (“the main application”) has not been determined.
	(2) An application for an order under this section (“an interim sexual risk order”)—
	(a) may be made by the complaint by which the main application is made, or
	(b) if the main application has been made, may be made by the person who has made that application, by complaint to the court to which that application has been made.
	(3) The court may, if it considers it just to do so, make an interim sexual risk order, prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
	(4) Such an order—
	(a) has effect only for a fixed period, specified in the order;
	(b) ceases to have effect, if it has not already done so, on the determination of the main application.
	(5) The applicant or the defendant may by complaint apply to the court that made the interim sexual risk order for the order to be varied, renewed or discharged.
	122F Sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders: notification requirements
	(1) A person in respect of whom a court makes—
	(a) a sexual risk order (other than one that replaces an interim sexual risk order), or
	(b) an interim sexual risk order,
	must, within the period of 3 days beginning with the date of service of the order, notify to the police the information set out in subsection (2) (unless the person is subject to the notification requirements of this Part on that date).
	(2) The information is—
	(a) the person’s name and, where the person uses one or more other names, each of those names;
	(b) the person’s home address.
	(3) A person who—
	(a) is subject to a sexual risk order or an interim sexual risk order (but is not subject to the notification requirements of this Part), and
	(b) uses a name which has not been notified under this section (or under any other provision of this Part), or changes home address,
	must, within the period of 3 days beginning with the date on which that happens, notify to the police that name or (as the case may be) the new home address.
	(4) Sections 87 (method of notification and related matters) and 91 (offences relating to notification) apply for the purposes of this section—
	(a) with references to section 83(1) being read as references to subsection (1) above,
	(b) with references to section 84(1) being read as references to subsection (3) above, and
	(c) with the omission of section 87(2)(b).
	122G Sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders: appeals
	(1) A defendant may appeal to the Crown Court—
	(a) against the making of a sexual risk order;
	(b) against the making of an interim sexual risk order; or
	(c) against the making of an order under section 122D, or the refusal to make such an order.
	(2) On any such appeal, the Crown Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
	(3) Any order made by the Crown Court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) or (b) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a magistrates’ court) is for the purposes of section 122D(7) or 122E(5) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the Crown Court).
	122H Offence: breach of sexual risk order or interim sexual risk order etc
	(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by—
	(a) a sexual risk order,
	(b) an interim sexual risk order,
	(c) a risk of sexual harm order,
	(d) an interim risk of sexual harm order,
	(e) an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland), or
	(f) an order under section 5 of that Act (interim risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland),
	commits an offence.
	(2) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed under section 122C(4).
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
	(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.
	122I Effect of conviction etc of an offence under section 122H etc
	(1) This section applies to a person (“the defendant”) who—
	(a) is convicted of an offence mentioned in subsection (2);
	(b) is found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity;
	(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence; or
	(d) is cautioned in respect of such an offence.
	(2) Those offences are—
	(a) an offence under section 122H or 128 of this Act;
	(b) an offence under section 7 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (contravention of risk of sexual harm order or interim risk of sexual harm order in Scotland).
	(3) Where—
	(a) a defendant was a relevant offender immediately before this section applied to the defendant, and
	(b) the defendant would (apart from this subsection) cease to be subject to the notification requirements of this Part while the relevant order (as renewed from time to time) has effect,
	the defendant remains subject to the notification requirements.
	(4) Where the defendant was not a relevant offender immediately before this section applied to the defendant—
	(a) this section causes the defendant to become subject to the notification requirements of this Part from the time the section first applies to the defendant until the relevant order (as renewed from time to time) ceases to have effect, and
	(b) this Part applies to the defendant, subject to the modification set out in subsection (5).
	(5) The “relevant date” is the date on which this section first applies to the defendant.
	(6) In this section “relevant order” means—
	(a) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of a sexual risk order or a risk of sexual harm order, that order;
	(b) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of an interim sexual risk order or an interim risk of sexual harm order, any sexual risk order or risk of sexual harm order made on the hearing of the application to which the interim order relates or, if no such order is made, the interim order.
	(7) In subsection (6) “risk of sexual harm order” and “interim risk of sexual harm order” include orders under sections 2 and 5 (respectively) of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005.
	122J Sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders: guidance
	(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to chief officers of police and to the Director General of the National Crime Agency in relation to the exercise by them of their powers with regard to sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the guidance issued under subsection (1).
	(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
	Risk of sexual harm orders
	5 (1) Sections 123 to 129 (risk of sexual harm orders) are repealed.
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.
	Application etc of orders
	6 After section 136 there is inserted—
	“136ZA Application of orders throughout the United Kingdom
	(1) In this section “relevant order” means—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order;
	(b) an interim sexual harm prevention order;
	(c) a sexual offences prevention order;
	(d) an interim sexual offences prevention order;
	(e) a foreign travel order;
	(f) a sexual risk order;
	(g) an interim sexual risk order;
	(h) a risk of sexual harm order;
	(i) an interim risk of sexual harm order;
	(j) an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland);
	(k) an order under section 5 of that Act (interim risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland).
	(2) For the purposes of sections 103I, 113, 122, 122H and 128, prohibitions imposed by a relevant order made in one part of the United Kingdom apply (unless expressly confined to particular localities) throughout that and every other part of the United Kingdom.
	136ZB Order ceases to have effect when new order made
	(1) Where a court in England and Wales makes an order listed in the first column of the following Table in relation to a person who is already subject to an order listed opposite it in the second column, the earlier order ceases to have effect (whichever part of the United Kingdom it was made in) unless the court orders otherwise.
	
		
			 New order Earlier order 
			 Sexual harm prevention order —sexual offences prevention order; —foreign travel order. 
			 Sexual risk order —risk of sexual harm order; —foreign travel order. 
		
	
	(2) Where a court in Northern Ireland or Scotland makes an order listed in the first column of the following Table in relation to a person who is already subject to an order or prohibition listed opposite it in the second column, the earlier order or prohibition ceases to have effect (even though it was made or imposed by a court in England and Wales) unless the court orders otherwise.
	
		
			 New order Earlier order or prohibition 
			 Sexual offences prevention order —sexual harm prevention order not containing a prohibition on foreign travel; —in the case of a sexual harm prevention order containing a prohibition on foreign travel, each of its other prohibitions. 
			 Foreign travel order —prohibition on foreign travel contained in a sexual harm prevention order. 
			 Risk of sexual harm order —sexual risk order not containing a prohibition on foreign travel; —in the case of a sexual risk order containing a prohibition on foreign travel, each of its other prohibitions. 
		
	
	(3) In this section—
	(a) “court”, in Scotland, includes sheriff;
	(b) “risk of sexual harm order” includes an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005.”’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33
	 — 
	Injunction—best interests of the child

‘The courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration when deciding whether to impose the following—
	(a) an injunction;
	(b) the terms of any prohibition or requirement;
	(c) sanctions for breach of an injunction; and
	(d) when determining reporting of a child’s case.’.—(Simon Hughes.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 158,in clause 1, page1,line8, after ‘conduct’, insert ‘that might reasonably be regarded as’.
	Amendment 163,page1,line10, leave out ‘and’ and insert ‘,’.
	Amendment 164,page1,line10, after ‘convenient’, insert ‘and proportionate’.
	Amendment 159,page2,line1, leave out ‘doing anything’ and insert ‘specified actions’.
	Amendment 160,page2,line2, after ‘injunction’, insert
	‘which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged or threatened to engage in’.
	Amendment 161,page2,line3, leave out ‘anything’ and insert ‘specified actions’.
	Amendment 162,page2,line3, after ‘injunction’, insert
	‘which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged or threatened to engaged in’.
	Amendment 165,page2, leave out line 6.
	Government amendments 1 to 12.
	Amendment 166, in clause 12,page6,line29, after ‘court’, insert
	‘is satisfied that the exclusion is necessary and proportionate, and’.
	Government amendments 13 to 15.
	Amendment 167,in clause 21, page11,line24, after ‘satisfied’, insert
	‘, according to the criminal standard of proof.’.
	Government amendment 16.
	Amendment 168,page11,line27, leave out ‘help in preventing’ and insert ‘prevent’.
	Amendment 169,page11,line31, leave out ‘doing anything’ and insert ‘specified actions’.
	Amendment 170,page11,line31, after ‘order’, insert
	‘which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged in’.
	Amendment 171,page11,line32, leave out ‘anything’ and insert ‘specified actions’.
	Amendment 172,page11,line32, after ‘order’, insert
	‘which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged in’.
	Amendment 173,page12, leave out line 3.
	Government amendment 17.
	Amendment 174, in clause 22,page12,line44, at end insert—
	‘(9) The courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration when determining reporting of a child’s case.’.
	Amendment 175,in clause 29, page16,line40, at end insert—
	‘(7) The courts must taken into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration when determining reporting a child’s case.’.
	Government amendment 18.
	Amendment 176, in clause 34,page20,line17, at end add—
	‘(c) any other form of peaceful assembly.’.
	Government amendments 19 to 44.
	Amendment 177,page61,line22, leave out Clause 91.
	Government amendments 45 to 48.
	Amendment 96,in schedule 8, page155,line32, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27.
	Government amendment 82.

Simon Hughes: I wish to speak to the new clause and amendments that I and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) tabled, and I will also say a word about the Government amendments and Labour’s amendment 96.
	Our amendments all arise from the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has just completed its report on the Bill. I welcome the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—if I can have his attention for a second—to his new responsibilities. I hope it will help him and the House if I say that we do not intend to seek to divide the House on the new clause or the amendments, but I hope that he will be able to give me a positive and constructive response. On many occasions we have been on the same side, trying to get positive and constructive responses from previous Conservative and Labour Governments. We have not always succeeded, but I hope that the new form of double act will allow me to ask for some reasonable changes and him to agree, either today or very shortly, to the changes that we seek.
	I will put on record the relevant parts of the summary of the Joint Committee’s report, which we published on 9 October. It was the Committee’s fourth report of this Session. It states:
	“The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 May 2013…It is a substantial Bill containing many provisions with significant human rights implications”.
	The new clause relates to one of those implications. All the amendments in this group have human rights implications, which is why Mr Speaker has grouped them
	We should like Ministers to pay attention to the issue of antisocial behaviour, which I shall come to expressly; to that of forced marriage; and, probably most politically controversially, to those of powers to stop, question, search and detain at ports, and compensation for miscarriages of justice. We shall come to those matters later in our deliberations.
	We are grateful for the way the Bill team facilitated the Committee’s scrutiny of those issues, but we have three qualifications, as set out in our unanimous report. It states:
	“First, we doubt whether the mechanisms for ensuring that a systematic analysis of the impact of laws and policies on children’s rights is carried out are yet embedded across Whitehall. We repeat our call for the Government to reassure Parliament that in future it will conduct a thorough assessment of the impact of legislation on the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child before the legislation is introduced. We propose to raise with the Children’s Commissioner the question of what can
	be done, in practical terms, to accelerate the Government’s progress towards implementing its undertaking to Parliament of nearly three years ago.
	Second, the number of significant Government amendments to the Bill with potentially significant human rights implications has made our scrutiny—”
	any Committee’s scrutiny, but ours in particular—
	“of the Bill’s human rights compatibility more difficult”.
	We take up that issue with the Leader of the House on a regular basis, because the more amendments are tabled late in the day, the more difficult Committees such as ours find it to report to the House and advise colleagues on how to respond. The summary continues:
	“Third, the Government has not always provided us with information it has promised in sufficient time to enable us to scrutinise it adequately. We call on the Government, once again, to ensure in future that we are provided with the information we request in time to inform our scrutiny of Government Bills.”
	Let me address the new clause and amendments to the antisocial behaviour proposals collectively, and then I will consider them individually although I do not anticipate detaining the House for too long. Parts 1 to 6 of the Bill reform current measures on antisocial behaviour, and the Committee’s view is that preventive measures against antisocial behaviour are, in principle, a welcome fulfilment of the state’s positive obligation to protect people against having their rights interfered with by others—that is the important context in which we consider all human rights implications of the Bill’s antisocial behaviour provisions.
	New clause 33 would add to the Bill the requirement that
	“The courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration”
	when imposing an injunction. It is a common principle of criminal and welfare law that the best interests of children be taken into account, and we would like that written into the Bill. The new clause simply states that the best interests of the child should be taken into account in four situations, namely when the courts are deciding to impose
	“an injunction;
	the terms of any prohibition or requirement;
	sanctions for breach of an injunction; and
	when determining reporting of a child’s case.”.
	The Committee considered the human rights compatibility of the new civil injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance—an IPNA. The Bill states that an IPNA may be imposed if the court considers it “just and convenient” to prevent antisocial behaviour—a lower test than the test of necessity required by human rights law. We also considered that the new IPNA definition of antisocial behaviour is too broad and not clear enough. I hope Ministers will consider positively the idea that the Bill should be as clear as possible and compatible with other legislation; we should not start introducing concepts not found in other legislation, which would mean that people would not know how the law would be interpreted.
	In the Committee’s view, the Bill’s current provisions on the prohibitions and requirements that can be attached to an injunction are far too broad. Furthermore, we have not been persuaded that it is necessary to state expressly that prohibitions and requirements in an IPNA must “so far as practicable” avoid any conflict with religious beliefs. The Committee is clear—the House has been clear about this on many occasions—that the
	freedom to hold religious beliefs, or any beliefs that may not be from a religious perspective, is not a relative right but an absolute right that cannot be interfered with. The power to exclude a person from his or her home through the use of an IPNA is a severe measure, and the Committee believes further provision is required to ensure that such a power is used only when necessary.
	As the new sanctions can be imposed on children as young as 10, the Committee also scrutinised the provisions and considered their impact on the rights of children. To reduce the potential negative impact of IPNA measures on children, we recommend that the courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in any IPNA legal proceedings. That explains the Committee’s position, and I will now consider quickly other amendments in the group.

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. Has he had a chance to consider the report by the Home Affairs Committee which, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, came up with many of the concerns he has highlighted? Perhaps the fact that two different Committees raised the same concerns will mean that our hon. Friend the Minister might reflect more on the issue.

Simon Hughes: I am aware of the report by the Home Affairs Committee. One good thing is that since I started—my hon. Friend was very young; indeed, he may not have been alive, or just about, I think—Select Committees have become more useful and effective. They play a strong and useful part not just in considering issues, as the Home Affairs Committee has done, but in looking at legislation and reporting to the House. If we set up Select Committees like the Home Affairs Committee, or the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I and the hon. Member for Aberavon have the privilege to serve and which he has the honour to chair, it is nonsensical if our recommendations are not properly considered by the Government.
	Amendments 158, 163, 164, 159 to 162, 165 and 166 relate to part 1 of the Bill. They do not require any great supporting speech as I hope they are drafted clearly and make their point. Amendment 158 would amend clause 1 on the power to grant injunctions, and would add to subsection (2) the words “might reasonably be regarded”. If amended, the clause would read:
	“The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct that might reasonably be regarded as capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
	That seeks to introduce an objective rather than a subjective test, which we believe would be helpful in ensuring the law is clear.
	Amendments 163 and 164 go together and would mean that one test a court should apply when considering whether to impose an injunction, in addition to whether it is “just and convenient”, should be whether it is “proportionate”. That is a simple proposition, and as I know from my constituency work—and, I guess, the same is true for colleagues—it is always difficult to judge whether going to court and getting an injunction is the right way to deal with what may be growing, yet still relatively modest, antisocial behaviour. We think proportionality is appropriate and that it is better to write that into the Bill.
	Amendments 159 to 162 ask for greater specificity about what the injunction prohibits, and we have tried to tidy up the language a bit—to put it bluntly—and remove some relatively loose wording. Clause 1(4) currently reads:
	“An injunction under this section may for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour—
	prohibit the respondent from doing anything described in the injunction;
	require the respondent to do anything described in the injunction.”
	There is a prohibition provision and a requirement provision. We ask the House to consider whether, rather than “do anything” the clause could be a bit more specific—that is a pretty general phrase not normally found in legislation. Amendment 159 would prohibit the respondent from “specified actions”, so the injunction would state, “You cannot throw stones through windows”, rather than, “You cannot do anything,” which may or may not be specified. “You must stop behaving badly” seems a rather unsatisfactory and general instruction, whether it is men behaving badly, or women or anybody else.
	Amendment 160 would add the phrase
	“which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged or threatened to engage in”
	to the end of subsection (4), so we are clear that we think the Bill should link the prohibition contained in the injunction with the behaviour. For example, if people were regularly dive-bombing in Canada Water, which is a lovely bit of my constituency in the Surrey docks, in a way that frightened all the anglers and the fish and the pensioners sitting on the seats, it would be appropriate to have a prohibition that related to the antisocial behaviour of dive-bombing into Canada Water. It would not be appropriate to have a prohibition against throwing paper aeroplanes through the windows of the old people’s home or whatever. I think people get the idea. As the hon. Member for Aberavon would say, we are not a Committee that tries to create extra legislation or complication. We spend quite a lot of time trying to make things simpler and clearer in language that ordinary people can understand, so I hope that is appreciated.
	Amendments 161 and 162 relate to the requirement part of the injunction. At present the injunction can
	“(b) require the respondent to do anything described in the injunction.”
	We would like “anything” to be replaced by “specified actions”. Amendment 162 would add at the end of the requirement provisions the same wording as amendment 160, so it would read:
	“(b) require the respondent to do specified actions”
	described in the injunction
	“which relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged or threatened to engage in.”
	We hope that makes the provision clearer and we hope the Government will buy that proposal.

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good series of points. Does he share a concern about positive actions? There may be cases where somebody,
	through no fault of their own, cannot perform a positive action. There were cases with indeterminate sentences, for example, where prisoners were required to do various courses, which in some cases were not available for them to do. Would that also be checked?

Simon Hughes: One of the things that I hope we do better now because of Select Committees is take time to get Bills right. We have pre-legislative scrutiny which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) knows that I was critical of large parts of the Health and Social Care Bill and I have been critical about the process for dealing with the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which has just gone through this House. I said here, and I have not changed my view, that the Government should have submitted the Bill for proper pre-legislative scrutiny. Unless it is absolutely impossible, pre-legislative scrutiny should always take place because draftspeople may do a good first job, but they may not think of all the issues that we, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, might spot and be able to use our experience to deal with. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and I hope the Government will be positive. I am sure these issues crop up in Lewes as much as in Cambridge and in Bermondsey and Southwark.
	The religious beliefs issue is the last in this set of amendments. We ask the Minister to consider removing clause 1(5)(a). At present there is a list of four things which the prohibitions and requirements in an injunction must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid: any conflict with the respondent’s caring responsibilities, any interference with the times at which the respondent normally works or attends school or any other educational establishment, and any conflict with the requirements of any other court order or injunction to which the respondent may be subject. The fourth one is
	“any conflict with the respondent’s religious beliefs”.
	As I indicated earlier, we think that that cannot properly be there because somebody’s right to hold a religious belief is absolute and therefore should not be qualified by the words
	“must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—
	(a) any conflict with the respondent’s religious beliefs”.
	I am encouraged to think that the Minister in particular will be helpful because he has a good human rights record and I am sure he will want to say, on behalf of the Home Office, that the Home Office is positive about that.
	There is one more amendment in the group relating to part 1—amendment 166— which deals with whether people can be excluded from their homes. We are clear that the sanction of excluding somebody from their home should be a sanction of last resort. It is a very serious thing to take away that right. At present there is a power to exclude a person from home in cases of violence or risk of harm. Clause 12 states:
	“(1) An injunction under section 1 may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where he or she normally lives only if—
	(a) that place is owned or managed by a local authority or a housing provider,
	(b) the injunction is granted on the application of the local authority or housing provider, and
	(c) the court thinks that—
	(i) the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or
	(ii) there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”
	This is a well publicised issue. In my borough, both when my colleagues were running the administration and when it has been under Labour administration, there has been discussion publicly as well as among councillors about whether an injunction should be used to kick people out of their council home or their housing association home, and if so, in what circumstances. In a way, such a provision is slightly discriminatory because it applies only to people who are in publicly funded housing; it does not apply to someone in private rented property. That remains an issue. We want the Minister to be positive about our amendment 166, which would add to subsection (c) one more condition—that the court has to be satisfied that the exclusion is necessary and appropriate. Of course, if someone has engaged or threatens to engage in violence, or has threatened other people in the house, whether it is domestic violence among members of a family or household or otherwise, the logic might be that they should be excluded. I do not resile from that at all, but because it is such a draconian solution the court needs to be clear that it is necessary and appropriate. That is the run of amendments in relation to part 1.
	There is a smaller number of amendments relating to part 2, which is about criminal behaviour orders. The Committee recommends that the appropriate standard of proof required to establish anti-social behaviour for the purpose of a criminal behaviour order, which is a new order being introduced by the Government, should be made clear on the face of the Bill. The reason we say that is that it could be assumed that it was a civil standard of proof, as opposed to a criminal standard of proof. We think we ought to make that clear, not just so that the public know, but so that law enforcers and the public authorities know.
	The Bill provides that a criminal behaviour order may be imposed if the court considers it “will help in preventing” anti-social behaviour. The Joint Committee on Human Rights does not consider this to be an appropriate or clear legislative test and we recommend that it is amended. As with the previous section, we consider that the broad and open-ended definition of the prohibitions and positive requirements that may be included in a criminal behaviour order do not satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, and we recommend to colleagues and to Government that the Bill be amended to achieve greater certainty.
	Amendment 167 inserts after “satisfied” the words
	“according to the criminal standard of proof”
	in clause 21.
	Amendment 168 would replace the words “help in preventing” with the single word “prevent”. Deciding whether something will help in preventing some behaviour gets us into rather esoteric territory and does not provide as clear a standard of proof as we would wish.
	Amendment 169 is the same as an amendment we suggested to part 1, and would mean that instead of using the words “doing anything” to describe the actions, “specified actions” would have to be set out.
	Amendment 170 is also similar to one of our amendments to part 1, and would ensure that the criminal behaviour orders
	“relate to the anti-social behaviour which the respondent has engaged in”.
	That would mean that there was a link between the activity and the public response.
	Amendment 171 is a further amendment to clause 21 to make it is slightly more specific and, again, uses the phrase “specified actions” rather than “anything”. Amendment 172 makes the same change as amendment 170 a little further on, ensuring that the order relates to the antisocial behaviour in question.
	Amendment 173 would leave out line 3 on page 12, which contains the same qualification as earlier about religious beliefs. The amendment would mean that the absolute right to religious beliefs would not be qualified when prohibitions and requirements in a criminal behaviour order were being considered by the authorities. We are trying to ensure that part 1 and part 2 are consistent and we hope that the Government will be positive about that.
	Amendments 174 and 175 would add the following sentence, which reflects the principle I set out at the beginning of my speech, to the end of clauses 22 and 29:
	“The courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration when determining reporting of a child’s case.”
	We are seeking to ensure that the duty of the court is on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment 176, the last in the group, applies to clause 34, which can be found on pages 19 and 20 of the Bill. Its last subsection states:
	“A constable may not give a direction to a person under section 33 if the person is one of a group of persons who are—
	(a) engaged in conduct that is lawful under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (peaceful picketing), or
	(b) taking part in a public procession of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) of section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of which…written notice has been given…or…written notice is not required”—
	that is, a lawful public procession. We think that, after that, a provision should be included so that a police officer cannot give a direction if people are engaging in any other lawful form of public assembly. There are public assemblies that are not marches or picketing but that are perfectly lawful, and we do not think that they should be interfered with under the powers in the Bill. I hope that my civil libertarian colleagues on both sides of the House will fully support that.
	That is part 3 dealt with, which leaves only part 5. It deals with the recovery of possession on riot-related antisocial behaviour grounds. The Committee’s view is simply put:
	“While we recognise the seriousness of riot-related offences, we are not persuaded by the Government’s justification for the new discretionary ground of possession for riot-related anti-social behaviour. We are concerned about its potential serious implications for family members, and consider that it may disproportionately affect women and children. We also consider that it amounts to a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm to others. We therefore recommend that this provision is removed from the Bill.”
	Let me pause and say that I am conscious that that area is controversial. The controversy arose in my constituency a year and a bit ago, in the summer, when we had “riots” on the streets of Southwark and—not to a huge degree, but to some degree—on the Walworth road and in Peckham. Other cities in Britain as well as other parts of London were affected by riots. The question is how we deal with those who are caught rioting. The issue that was the subject of widespread discussion was whether it is right to take away a home when one of the people living there has been involved in rioting. Is it right that a 15 or 17-year-old youngster living in a council property in Lewes, Cambridge, Southwark, Kingston-upon-Hull or anywhere else, should have their home taken away?
	The Select Committee makes the point that such a provision is more likely to punish innocent women and children for the mistake of somebody who is more likely to be male, and more likely to be a teenager. That will not necessarily be the case: some of the riots in London involved people who were certainly not teenagers, and some who were certainly not males. They were caught on CCTV and by other cameras. We were very clear, however, that we should remove from the Bill the ability to give power to recover possession on riot-related antisocial behaviour grounds.
	I am not an expert, but I believe that most local authorities have the power to terminate possession of tenancies on the basis that somebody has breached their tenancy agreement. It is certainly a breach of a tenancy agreement to behave in a way that seriously causes a nuisance to one’s neighbours or community. There are issues about how close that has to be, and so on. I ask the Government to be very careful in reflecting on the question. Although the easy populist line might be that it is good to have such a power on recovery in the Bill, I ask them to reflect on whether in fact it might be excessive and on the idea that it would not necessarily deal with the offence.
	I am not sure and have never been persuaded that taking a home away from family X when one of the children has been involved in breaking the windows of the mobile phone store down the road will stop that youngster breaking the windows of another store later on. It does not seem to me that the sanction on the family as a whole will necessarily deal with what might be the latest in a succession of bad behaviour.
	This group contains the largest group of amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to be dealt with today. I hope that I have put the case clearly. We have no objection to the Government amendments that my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt move later. We do not support the Labour amendment that, obviously, wants to keep the law as it is and to keep antisocial behaviour orders as they are, because the Government think they have a better answer, which is why they have introduced the Bill.

Steve Reed: Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) for the way in which she ably steered this Bill through Committee on behalf of the
	Opposition and for her work more generally as part of our shadow Home Office team before her well-deserved promotion last week. I also welcome the Minister to his new role and, along with my colleagues, I look forward to debating these important issues with him.
	Antisocial behaviour orders have been the cornerstone of the fight against antisocial behaviour since Labour came to power in 1997. In that year, the previous Tory Government had failed to address a problem that blighted communities up and down the country, from suburban lanes to inner-city estates, for which people were long overdue a Government response.
	ASBOs are a tough, fair and proportionate last response to persistent perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. They require a criminal burden of proof to be brought in, they are a last resort where other interventions have failed and they work because they are backed by the threat of criminal sanction. In seeking to repeal the legislation that brought in ASBOs, the Government are taking a retrograde and misguided step that will not be welcomed by the communities that live in fear of antisocial behaviour and that have come to know that the police have the power to take tough action backed by criminal sanctions if necessary.
	In the Government’s most recent crime survey, 80% of respondents said they believed that antisocial behaviour was increasing under this Government since the general election. One third of respondents said that they had either been a victim of, or witness to, antisocial behaviour. They will be wondering why the Government have chosen to respond to people’s concerns not by toughening the legislation or by empowering the police to take action, but by going soft, taking away the threat of criminal sanction, taking police off the beat to attend training on new and weaker powers of response, and requiring the new injunctions to be taken out not in magistrates courts, which would mean they could be dealt with quickly and efficiently, but in county courts, which are slow and overburdened. Amendment 96 seeks not to prevent the Government from introducing injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance—they could be a useful alternative for the police to consider using—but to keep ASBOs on the statute book, leaving it to local councils and police forces to decide what best suits their local areas and needs.
	I speak from experience. Before the people of Croydon North elected me to the House last November, I spent nearly seven years as leader of Lambeth council in south London. When Labour won power there in 2006, we found that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition had spent the previous three years stalling ASBOs on ideological grounds. One year, it issued none at all. As a consequence, antisocial behaviour remained too high, without sanction. Young people drifted from antisocial behaviour to low-level crime, and then to high-level crime, including street robberies. Gang violence rose. The fear of crime and the perception that local streets were simply not safe became endemic.
	One of the first things the Labour-led council did on taking power was clamp down on antisocial behaviour. Issuing ASBOs, working closely with the police, was a key part of the response.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats represent areas that are much more
	prosperous; Labour MPs typically represent by and large urban constituencies, with disadvantaged communities. Is it not the case that ASBOs are much more relevant to the constituencies that Labour Members represent?

Steve Reed: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but antisocial behaviour can happen in any community. Government Members ought to listen to the people they represent, who do not wish to see them watering down the responses and toolkit available to tackle antisocial behaviour.
	To refer again to my experience, Lambeth council increased the use of ASBOs to achieve a reduction in antisocial behaviour not for the slogans or press releases, or to try to look tough, but because it was needed to get a grip of our streets and return confidence to the law-abiding majority of residents. Government Members cannot tell me that ASBOs do not work because I saw how crime fell when a newly elected Labour council worked alongside the police to use ASBOs to great effect in making our streets and our communities safe again.
	ASBOs work in part because they are backed by a criminal sanction. Breaching an ASBO is not something to be taken lightly—it is a criminal offence. Persistent antisocial behaviour is deeply damaging to local communities, and people expect effective sanctions. With Labour’s ASBOs, that is exactly what they got. Instead, the Government propose to take away the criminal sanction. Offenders can breach IPNAs in the full knowledge that they are not committing a crime. If the police or local councils want action taken against someone who has breached their IPNA and who is terrorising a local community, they will not get support from the criminal justice system. There is no automatic penalty. Instead, the breach of an IPNA will lead to the potential of civil action brought under the contempt of court proceedings. Offenders across the country will be rejoicing that the Government have gone soft, while the law-abiding majority will be horrified.
	The Government’s proposal is not only a weak response to antisocial behaviour, but the police and local councils will pay for it themselves. Instead of criminal proceedings being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, the police will have to bring a civil action in the courts at their own expense.

Stephen Phillips: Why, if ASBOs with criminal penalties attached are so successful, do 70% to 80% of teenagers against whom they are made breach them?

Steve Reed: I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman examples of how we successfully used ASBOs to drive down antisocial behaviour and offending of that kind, so I do not take his point.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman argues the case for ASBOs passionately, but I am not sure hon. Members agree that they were as effective as he suggests. Has he seen opinion polls such as the one done by Angus Reid last year? Its survey found that only 8% believe that ASBOs have been successful in curbing antisocial behaviour in the UK.

Steve Reed: That might be the hon. Gentleman’s view and that of many of his colleagues, but many in the police service and elsewhere do not share it. I do not take that view.
	In abolishing ASBOs and replacing them with IPNAs, the Government are not only taking away the power of the police to clamp down effectively on antisocial behaviour, but making the police pay for any action that follows from their hugely diminished budgets. One chief inspector has said, on the record, that the costs of pursuing such action through the civil courts would be in the region of £1,500 on every occasion. Based on last year’s court figures for breaches of ASBOs, the switch to IPNAs will cost councils and police forces another £1.5 million a year. That £1.5 million will be taken from two of the hardest-hit parts of the public sector. If a 20% cut to policing was not bad enough, hitting the police with a £1.5 million additional annual bill just for doing their job in tackling antisocial behaviour is a pretty low and unwelcome blow.
	As with all costs, the proposal introduces disincentives. In the Public Bill Committee’s evidence-taking sessions, the chair of the Police Federation, Steve Williams, was asked whether the cost of pursuing an IPNA breach, both in financial and staff resourcing terms, would deter the police from taking action, to which he replied:
	“That is a strong possibility. Yes.”—[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 9, Q11.]
	In Committee, Government Members said that IPNAs were necessary because they, unlike ASBOs, would not lead to a criminal record. They believe that criminalising children is wrong. However, breaching an ASBO is the criminal offence, not being subject to one. I must tell Government Members who share those concerns that IPNAs have been roundly criticised for lowering the burden of proof and for their lack of proportionality. Twenty-five organisations, including Liberty, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s, put their names to a letter to The Times criticising IPNAs for their low burden of proof, and because they do not require “any form of intent”. The letter states:
	“Such ill-thought out legislation will sweep up all kinds of non-criminal and non-serious behaviour, wasting police time and clogging up the courts. It threatens to divert resources from genuinely harmful or distressing behaviour, where the police and other services should be focussed”.

Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I remember his days as Labour leader of Lambeth very well. I understand that he would rather keep ASBOs. If the criticism he cites from the newspaper letter is right, and if he shares it, will he support the cross-party amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which would make clear exactly what the standard of proof should be and introduce other protections?

Steve Reed: I argue that we should retain ASBOs alongside IPNAs as alternatives for the police and local councils to choose as they believe appropriate in the circumstances.
	The IPNA will be available whenever behaviour is found to be likely to cause nuisance or annoyance. I can give examples from my constituency of Croydon North. I have received complaints from residents about children
	playing and making a noise in the street. They are at liberty to raise their grievances, but there is a question of proportionality. Under the Government’s proposals, we could be left in the farcical situation that children get handed down a court order for playing, while the hardened offender gets let off the hook with no sanction. It is a perverse and muddled policy from Ministers.
	Let me be clear: Labour would not scrap ASBOs if we were in power. We believe that communities deserve better than a watering-down of powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. I would be grateful if the Minister would address, when he replies to the debate, the growing controversy between the Home Office and the Welsh Government in relation to Government amendment 82. I understand that the Welsh Government have made it clear that they object to what the Government are doing in watering down powers in Wales to deal with antisocial behaviour. It is clear that such a change will require a legislative consent order in the Welsh Assembly, which they are not willing to give. It is not something that we have the time to debate fully today given the constraints in the programme motion, but I am sure the Minister will want to put his position on record before this controversial change reaches the other place.
	The Welsh Government are opposed to this change and so are we. We believe the police deserve better than to have one hand tied behind their back when trying to clamp down on offending. Local authorities deserve better than to be hit with new charges for trying to prosecute persistent antisocial behaviour. We believe that behaviour that blights lives demands a tough response. ASBOs give police and councils the ability to clamp down and target offenders: IPNAs will not. Many of my former colleagues who still lead local authorities are horrified at the prospect of losing a power that I was able to use when I led a council to make residents feel safer in their homes and on their streets.
	In seeking to weaken powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, the Government appear to have gone soft on crime, but tough on the communities suffering from crime. The case for abolishing ASBOs has not been made by the Government, not at Second Reading, not in Committee and not today. Coalition Members must ask themselves whether they feel comfortable voting in favour of a move away from an effective sanction on persistent antisocial behaviour towards one that, according to numerous organisations, will criminalise ordinary childhood behaviour but leave persistent antisocial offenders laughing.
	This proposal is wrong, and that is why we have tabled amendment 96 today. It will keep ASBOs as part of the armoury against antisocial behaviour, empowering our police and our communities to tackle antisocial behaviour, to crack down on yobbish behaviour and to respond effectively to the needs of local communities. Keeping ASBOs is a vital part of keeping our streets safe. A time when 80% of people feel that antisocial behaviour is getting worse is no time to weaken our resolve in tackling it. We must stand foursquare alongside the law-abiding majority. I urge all Members to join us in the Lobby, to stand with their local communities and support amendment 96 this evening.

Tracey Crouch: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new position and I look forward to working with him in the future on some key issues.
	Government amendment 4 would replace the amendments to the Bill that I tabled and that were passed in Committee. I am grateful for Opposition support for the amendments and for the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). It is important to set out in context the reasons why I pressed those amendments to a vote in Committee and the background to the issue.
	When we came to discuss the issue of antisocial behaviour and the new injunctions, it was clear that this was a perfect opportunity to talk about the vitally important issue of bullying. It is a key issue for many children and their parents. The statistics speak for themselves. Research now shows that one in three children have experienced bullying, with some suggesting that 70% of young people have at some point experienced some form of bullying. One million kids are being bullied every week, both in and out of school. It is one of the greatest concerns for children as they grow up and their parents. Beat Bullying research found that 44% of suicides among ten to 14-year-olds were explicitly linked to bullying, and at least 20 children every year commit suicide because they are being bullied.
	I wish to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) who, like me, has met the family of Ayden Olson, who unfortunately committed suicide as a consequence of bullying. Politicians need to take notice of such stories and try to make a difference to them.
	I felt that the new injunctions were a really good opportunity to bring bullying back to the forefront of public debate, not least because in the past people have been concerned about criminalising bullies. Under previous legislation, bullying could lead to some sort of criminal sanction. The change to injunctions requiring instead a civil punishment meant this was the perfect opportunity to require them to include a positive requirement as well as the punishment of the injunction.

Priti Patel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning my constituent, who was involved in a horrific bullying case that led to his suicide. Does she agree that the Bill is a good opportunity to find a way in which to protect vulnerable children and to punish bullies in the right way, as in the case of my constituent that she has highlighted?

Tracey Crouch: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is exactly why it is important to add to the Bill the requirements to deal with bullying. We can deal with the bullies as well as the victims, because bullies are often victims of wider bullying, perhaps at home. The positive requirements would enable all sorts of agencies to intervene at an early stage and protect not just the victims, but the bullies themselves.
	Bullying is not just face to face any more. Cyber-bullying is a massive problem, and it is certainly something that Ayden experienced. We are seeing increasing numbers of cyber-bullied victims. Some 63% say that the bullying
	started offline and then continued online. Bullying is not the same as it was when I was at school, when it was people being mean to each other in the playground. It is now persistent bullying on and offline. That is why I am pleased that the Government accepted the need to put bullying back into the guidance on the injunctions. It was originally in the guidance on the 1999 Act that introduced ASBOs. The subsequent review of ASBOs in 2002 also included persistent bullying, but the 2006 guidance—which until recently was the current Home Office guidance—did not mention bullying. I was grateful therefore for the commitment in Committee, from the former Minister, that bullying would be included in the guidance. Having seen an early draft of that, I am content with the guidance that will be issued.
	If we are including bullying within the guidance of the injunction, it is logical to give those who primarily have responsibility for dealing with bullying—mainly schools, which unfortunately retain most of the responsibility—the tools to deal with it. That is why in Committee I pressed for head teachers and principals to be given the opportunity to apply for the injunctions. That would have been a permissive power that I thought would be a logical step. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by the teaching unions, all of which I have subsequently consulted, so I am reluctantly resigned to the removal of heads and further education principals from the Bill and I accept Government amendment 4.
	I hope that bullying is not taken off the agenda. I hope that it is recognised as an extremely important issue for both children and parents, and that we recognise that further steps need to be taken to protect our children. We must ensure that perpetrators of bullying are dealt with in a way that helps them in their family and in society, and that they can have the positive requirements that the injunctions will give, despite the teachers and principals not applying for them. I am pleased that the Government continue to recognise the importance of bullying by keeping it in the guidance on the injunction, but I am sad that the teachers did not feel that they wanted the power to apply for it.

John McDonnell: I support amendments 158, 176 and 177, which have been tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am not sure that they go far enough, but they are what we have before us.
	On amendment 158, my anxiety relates to the wording in clause 1. It almost legislates for pre-crimes, which became fashionable a couple of years ago. Hon. Members might recall that, at the time of the royal wedding, Dr Chris Knight and a number of his friends wished to protest against expenditure on the royal wedding. As part of a theatre group, they were going to take papier-mâché representations of the royal family to Buckingham palace on the day of the royal wedding and ceremonially guillotine them. The police arrested Dr Knight and his friends, detaining them—this was eventually legally challenged—on the basis that this was not a crime, but a pre-crime that could, at some point in the future, be designated as a crime.
	The Bill, without the relatively minor amendment from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, states:
	“The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing a nuisance”.
	That is not conduct causing a nuisance and not a crime that is taking place, but a judgment that there could be a crime in the future. That is a burden of judgment placed on a police officer or others that is almost impossible to determine and will leave us open to legal challenges until the cows come home. I support the amendment because it would at least define “reasonable judgment”, with criteria brought forward when the judgment is exercised. Otherwise, we will potentially be giving officers and others—in particular, the court—extensive powers, with little evidence on which to base the exercise of those powers.
	The theme of our concerns in amendment 176 is to ensure that people have the right to express their views and the right to protest. Part 1, by designating certain forms of behaviour as unacceptable, can close down, as pre-crimes, certain activities. Those activities are exemplified by the experience of Dr Chris Knight, who was simply attempting to voice an alternative view. I am grateful to Mr Matthew Varnham for pointing out, in his evidence to the Joint Committee, that, as the Bill currently stands, any spontaneous act of protest could be designated as antisocial behaviour.
	Curiously enough, I met Mr Varnham on a protest in Parliament square—people with disabilities were campaigning against work capability assessments. The protest had been applied for in advance and the police had given permission for it to take place. Spontaneous acts will take place at such protests. Groups will break off spontaneously and undertake other forms of protest, because they will have been convinced by the people speaking or by the debate that has taken place that further action needs to take place. As the Bill stands, that form of spontaneous protest would be outlawed and we would be dragging people through the courts simply because they went along to listen to a speech—for example, by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—were excited by it, and decided that they wanted to do something spontaneous to ensure that his views were echoed in the wider community. At the moment, they would be arrested. God forbid that the right hon. Gentleman would ever incite anyone in that way—not on the basis of his speeches in this place, but perhaps elsewhere.
	If we close down free speech, we will be dragging people through the courts who simply want to exercise their right in a democratic society to say that they disagree. It is often the people who exercise this right to whom Parliament listens. It is as a result of such protest that legislative reform takes place. Most hon. Members have been involved in such campaigns, in particular the Minister, who is our sleeper within the Home Office on matters of this sort. I am anxious that we are giving a breadth of powers to courts and others to prevent freedom of speech. That is why I agree with amendment 176—a relatively mild-mannered amendment —which says that where there is an opportunity for peaceful assembly people should not be dragged before the courts just because they have taken the opportunity to protest spontaneously.
	Amendment 177 is also tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am extremely anxious about the additional penalty. I was involved in a case in south London where a family was threatened with eviction by,
	I believe, the London borough of Wandsworth. One member of the family, a young man, was prosecuted for participating in the riots. The family had no role whatever in the riots. I am not sure what their attitude was towards the young man—it never came out in discussions —but they certainly never knew that he was engaged in that behaviour. However, they were all threatened with eviction. Eventually, legal action was threatened and the local authority withdrew. I am worried that when the Bill is passed we will be in a situation where parents and others, who have no control over individual members of their family, will suffer as a result of a crime that they never participated in and, often, did not condone.
	The inclusion of the measure in the Bill might have been politically advantageous a couple of years ago, but time has moved on. It is draconian and will result in injustice. As has been said, if a crime is committed by a member of a household in the vicinity of that property, powers already exist to deal with that. Most hon. Members would seek to ensure that the landlord, whether the council or a housing association, implemented the tenancy agreement. Every tenancy agreement I have seen in recent times allows the exercise of powers to seek repossession if necessary when a family, or a visitor, has brought about antisocial behaviour that has affected neighbours and others living in the vicinity. This measure is therefore unnecessary and will have a disproportionate impact on the families of those who may well have been involved in other forms of illegal activity—the riots were given as an example by the Minister when this was debated previously.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that he will not press any of the amendments to a Division, but I hope we will receive assurances that these issues will be addressed.

Simon Hughes: I said that we would not press the amendments to a Division tonight so that we can hear what the Government have to say, but we are committed to the amendments and we are clear that the Bill needs to be amended in the way that we propose. We are not going to back-off. We need a better Bill.

John McDonnell: I am hoping that the relationship the right hon. Gentleman has with the Minister is so influential that accommodation can be reached on this matter. If there is not accommodation, I think the amendment will come back at a later stage, because the measure will be seen to be unacceptable. If it did go through, I think it would cause future Governments—here and elsewhere in Europe—immense difficulties as these matters are contested, because the right to free speech is being undermined, as well as the articles of human rights legislation that allow people to enjoy the freedom of being in their own home.
	On that basis, I support the amendments and hope we will get a positive response to them from the Minister.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I agree with much of what he said, particularly about the consequences of the riots, which I shall come back to. Let me start by welcoming the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to his new post and by congratulating him on his promotion to Minister of State. His injection
	of liberalism into this Department will be hugely welcome after decades in which Conservative and Labour Governments have clamped down on civil liberties and taken illiberal approaches wherever possible, playing to populism’s worst flaws. I greatly look forward to him playing his role as Minister of State in this Department.
	I disagree with what the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) said about the effectiveness of ASBOs. I do not think they were effective at all, but I do think substantial improvements can be made to the Bill. I hope this new Minister will take the opportunity to reflect on our comments and come up with something that takes them all into account.

Stephen Phillips: Whether or not ASBOs were effective originally, does my hon. Friend agree that, over time, they have become increasingly less effective? The breach rates are now so significant—up to 90% for most orders—that they have become utterly meaningless.

Julian Huppert: I agree; my hon. Friend is right that ASBOs simply do not work, so the idea of continuing them does not make much sense.

Jim Cunningham: Before the 1997 election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and I campaigned for ASBOs. We did so because when we knocked on doors in certain estates, we often found that elderly people were being terrorised by gangs. In that part of Coventry, those people used steel doors to protect themselves. That is why we need to be careful when we say that ASBOs work or do not work. It depends greatly on the local authority and the police to make ASBOs work. I do not quite buy what the hon. Gentleman said; he had better put something in place that is stronger than ASBOs. Anybody who deals with inner-city problems in Coventry, London and other places knows that people can be terrorised on estates. That is why we need to be very careful about what we do to ASBOs.

Julian Huppert: I absolutely accept that there are problems of antisocial behaviour, including in many areas of my constituency. I am sure that all hon. Members’ constituencies are affected by it. The fact that there is an antisocial behaviour problem, however, and the fact that the words “antisocial behaviour” appear in the name of the order does not mean that the one is a solution to the other. I simply do not accept that they have been a very effective mechanism. Much better approaches have been taken by a number of innovative councils. Islington, for example, has tried antisocial behaviour contracts, which have been far more successful and there has been a range of successes elsewhere.
	Simplifying the toolkit available is another issue. I welcome the idea of going down from 19 powers to six, which will make it much it much easier for people to find out what the options are. That is another reason why I reject the idea of keeping ASBOs together with IPNAs—injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance—which seems to me to be the worst of both worlds. The Bill must be aimed at trying to prevent harm and I hope that we will be able to solve that problem, helping people to get their lives back on track by dealing with the problems, rather than basing things on mediaeval punishment and state-aided revenge.
	There are some concerns about the changes to IPNAs. ASBOs dealt with behaviour in
	“a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”,
	while IPNAs talk about
	“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
	I certainly hope that my hon. Friend the Minister causes nuisance or annoyance to the Secretary of State; I expect that to be part of a working relationship and I am rather nervous about Secretaries of State being allowed to apply for IPNAs on this basis, if only for health-related issues. There is concern about what is meant by
	“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
	I suspect we all carry that out on a regular basis or could find people whose conduct could be described in that way. That worries me, as it could be used more broadly. We heard from the Association of Chief Police Officers that IPNAs could stigmatise and criminalise young people unnecessarily, and they also tend to blur the distinction between criminal activity and nuisance.
	The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for his excellent speech, clarifying detailed and important amendments—says that
	“the new…definition of anti-social behaviour is broad and unclear”.
	I agree completely; the definition must become rather more defined.
	When the Home Affairs Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny, we argued that there should be a test of intent or recklessness and that any action taken should be “necessary”. Something in that space is absolutely essential: whether it be through the wording used or by the introduction of a mens rea to try to offset the lower threshold to avoid hitting people with mental health issues, we need something to tighten up the definition of IPNAs without being overly broad.
	My right hon. Friend was absolutely right about positive requirements. These are, in principle, very good and very helpful, but the concern was, as we heard in the Select Committee, that the councils would struggle to deliver those positive requirements in some cases. We know that the court
	“must receive evidence of suitability and enforceability before a requirement is imposed”,
	but not that the positive option will be available to someone. We must check that the positive requirements are doable, which I hope can be confirmed.
	We have to deal with the issue of children because a huge number of these IPNAs will be issued to children. They have to be heavily involved in the resolution programme while being viewed as victims. I agree with new clause 33, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as the courts must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in any of these legal proceedings. I hope that the Minister will focus particularly on that.

Simon Hughes: Sometimes, of course, the best interest of the child is to have discipline from outside the family. It is not a one-way street that says that the best interest of the child is always a soft option; it may sometimes be a tougher option when the family is not up to the job.

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, highlighting why it is important to have this provision.
	Since I first saw the Bill in its pre-legislative form in the Home Affairs Committee, I have been extremely concerned about clause 17. This disapplies section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for both IPNAs and CBOs. It disallows the rules that say that children should not be named and shamed publicly. We should all be extremely alarmed about that because children make errors. They may do something very silly when they are 14. Particularly in today’s age when data is freely available, what they have done could stay with them for the rest of their lives, and there is very little that anybody could do to stop that. That makes it hard for them to rehabilitate, to grow up and to become someone who regrets what they did when they were 14, as so many people will do.
	I have heard the Government comment that the intention is to apply this only in rare circumstances, so that judges would not automatically name and shame young people, but do so only where it was an essential part of the order. The guidance must be absolutely crystal clear on this—on minimising the naming and shaming. This should be disapplied only where it is necessary to do so rather than applying it willy-nilly. Otherwise we will breach the UN convention on the rights of the child and a lot of other provisions.
	On dispersal powers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that in response to the Select Committee report the Government have protected peaceful picketing and public processions, but I think it would be good to go even further to ensure that we do not prevent peaceful protest when we deal with antisocial behaviour. I agree with the amendment on that.
	Lastly, I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about clause 91, which deals with riot-related offences. These have arisen from the time of the riots and the Prime Minister’s reaction to them. Now, however, we have calmed down and recovered from those awful events, so it is time to reflect on whether we need this special sanction. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, these provisions deal with a situation for which solutions are already available, so we do need to deal with the problem in the way proposed. The JCHR’s report says that it recognises
	“the seriousness of riot-related offences”,
	but questions whether we need a special rule for riot-related antisocial behaviour, because it looks like
	“a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm”.
	I therefore hope that the Government will reflect on whether the clause is still needed.
	Overall, the Bill has been improved, but I hope it can be improved even further. I am very excited at the role that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to play. I look forward to hearing his response to the amendments, which I hope, in the fullness of time, he will be able to recommend.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about amendment 158, and indeed about other amendments.
	Objectivity is vital. In the absence of objectivity, the police officer will be judge and jury, deciding everything on the spot, and—with the best will in the world—in a difficult, fraught situation on a busy Saturday night, things could go badly wrong. If we do not bring some objectivity to bear, we shall be on a very dangerous and slippery slope. I hope that the Government will consider this reasonable amendment.
	The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) referred to Government amendment 82, but said that time did not permit further discussion of it this evening. With respect, I entirely disagree. The amendment is constitutionally important. I remind the House that it states:
	“In Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (legislative competence of Welsh Assembly), in the list of exceptions in paragraph 12, for ‘Anti-social behaviour orders’ there is substituted ‘Orders to protect people from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress‘.”.
	On the face of it, the amendment does not seem particularly difficult to accept. However, the Government tabled it notwithstanding strong objections raised by both the First Minister of Wales and the Welsh Minister for Local Government and Government Business, and I understand that both gentlemen have written to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Secretary of State for Wales expressing grave concern.
	The amendment would replace a current exception to the legislative competence of the National Assembly of Wales with respect to antisocial behaviour orders with that new exception. I understand that the Home Office has so far claimed that the amendment to schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act is merely consequential, and can thus be made without the need for a legislative consent motion in the Assembly. However, the First Minister made it clear in correspondence with relevant Ministers in the House of Commons that the amendment would
	“represent a substantive reduction in the Assembly’s legislative competence.”
	I consider that to be a matter of constitutional importance that cannot simply be brushed away.
	It is surprising, to say the least, that the Government have chosen to act so brazenly, given that in their response to part II of the Commission on Devolution in Wales, they said that the interpretation of this self-same exception was “unclear”—referring to the provision that specifies antisocial behaviour orders as an exception to the Assembly’s legislative competence in respect of local government, namely paragraph 12 of schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act. The question of how the Government can amend the exception without being certain of its interpretation is beyond at least my understanding, and probably beyond that of many other people. Given that the Government suggested that the Silk commission should look into the matter, it is perverse for them to act in advance of the commission’s recommendations. Furthermore, as they stated in their evidence that they were uncertain about how to interpret the exception, I do not know how they can be so sure that no legislative consent motion is required to amend it.
	If the proposed amendment to the exception were passed, all orders to protect individuals from behaviour giving rise to harassment, alarm or distress would be outside the legislative competence of the Welsh National Assembly. The Assembly would consequently be unable to legislate to protect people from such behaviour, even in devolved fields such as education, health and housing. The amendment would represent a substantive alteration in the institution’s competence, and the House should therefore not accept it without first seeking the Assembly’s agreement. I understand that a legislative consent memorandum and motion are to be laid in the Assembly, and that the Welsh Government will not be supporting the motion. I expect that the same will apply to my Plaid Cymru colleagues in the Assembly.
	I believe that the amendment should be withdrawn, and that further discussions should take place. In my view, for the Government to railroad through the House a measure about which they are unclear is a constitutional disgrace.

Stephen Phillips: I intend to speak to the amendments for which I am at least in part responsible, and which were necessitated by our proceedings in Committee: amendments 1, 17, 45, 46 and 39 to 41. Before I do so, however, let me welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, and congratulate him on his promotion. Let me also welcome the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to his place on the Front Bench. He has been in the House for only a short time, and I am sure that his promotion is well deserved. No doubt we shall see a great deal more of him in due course.
	Having congratulated the hon. Gentleman, however, I am afraid that I must take issue with some of the points that he made this evening. I have to tell him that while there was a lot of hot air about Labour’s great policy of the ASBO, the truth of the matter on the streets—whether in urban or in rural Britain—has been very different. Year on year, ASBOs have been breached in increasing percentages. While the hon. Gentleman, as the former leader of Lambeth council, may well have thought that he had solved problems by securing ASBOs for those who were engaging in antisocial behaviour which was affecting people in the area, the truth is that merely securing the orders achieved precisely nothing. It was their enforcement that was important. As I am sure the Minister will tell us in his response, breach rates now stand at 70%, 80% or 90%.

Peter Bottomley: Drawing the attention of those on the Opposition Front Bench to the speech that my hon. and learned Friend is making may be to their advantage, as opposed to the advantage of the House. Would it be possible for them to stop talking to each other and listen to my hon. and learned Friend, who is making rather a good speech, mainly about the Opposition spokesmen themselves?

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I fear that it may be counter-productive. I thought I was having rather an easy ride, at least in terms of how my speech will read in Hansard. There has been no intervention so far from the hon. Member for Croydon North, and I suspect that there can be no intervention from him now, because he has not heard anything that I have said. Be that as it may, however,
	this is not Third Reading, so I shall now deal with the amendments with which the House is being troubled principally as a result of what some would describe as my intransigence in Committee.
	Let me begin with amendments 1 and 17. They relate, I am afraid, to words that were inserted in the Bill as a consequence of amendments to clauses 1 and 7, which were suggested by me and were carried in Committee. Clause 1 concerns the general power to grant injunctions. Subsection (5) states:
	“Prohibitions and requirements in an injunction under this section must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid”
	a list of occurrences including, for instance,
	“any conflict with the respondent’s religious beliefs”.
	In the form in which it was considered in Committee, the Bill made no reference to the fact that those against whom injunctions might be granted might have caring responsibilities, particularly in regard to children. Because I thought that that was an important omission, I proposed—and the Committee agreed, in circumstances that I shall describe in due course—that the court should be required to take into account
	“any conflict with the respondent’s caring responsibilities including, in particular, any caring responsibilities for a child”.
	That seemed to me—and still seems to me—to be particularly important. Children’s life chances are not fixed, and if an IPNA is granted against their parents, they may be significantly and substantially affected by something for which they are not responsible. In those circumstances, it seems appropriate for the court expressly to take into account caring responsibilities, particularly caring responsibilities for children—and, perhaps, for those who suffer from disabilities. The Government’s position is, as I understand it, that those matters will be taken into account by a court under the general powers in the Bill—that is the assurance I have been given. Indeed, the draft guidance produced last week in accordance with the undertakings given to the Public Bill Committee contains wording that requires those seeking IPNAs—regard will no doubt be paid to this by courts as well—to take into account caring responsibilities.
	On that basis, and although the decision has not been easy, I am not minded to oppose the Government’s desire to remove my first attempt at legislation in this House, successful as it was, because the Committee did not divide on the amendment I was proposing to clause 1. My amendment was accepted by the Minister who was then in charge, although there was a reservation when the “like” amendment was proposed to clause 27 that the Government reserved the right to come back to this matter on Report, as they have now done. Be that as it may, I am not going to take further the point that the Committee did not divide. The simple fact is—the Minister needs to make this clear from the Dispatch Box, so that it is clear to courts in due course—that one matter that has to be taken into account when an injunction is granted are the caring responsibilities of those against whom it is to be granted. That addresses amendments 1 and 17.
	Government amendments 45 and 46 relate to clause 93 —we are see-sawing around a lot because of how the amendments have been grouped—which deals with community remedies and the community remedy document. As the House will know, every Member having read the Bill in detail, that is a list of community remedies—punishments, if one prefers—that can be handed out,
	which is drafted by a local policing body. Before it came into Committee, the Bill provided no guidance as to what that document might contain. As I pointed out in Committee, it might have provided that one punishment or remedy that could be handed out was to place someone in the stocks for two or three hours and have oranges hurled at them. Many of our constituents would doubtless think that a very sensible community remedy to be contained in a list of punishments or remedies that might be handed out to those guilty of antisocial behaviour. Obviously, the police and crime commissioners who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee indicated that some form of guidance would be both desirable and necessary, and that has been taken on board by the Government. I tabled, but did not move, a probing amendment in Committee and it has been picked up by the Government, in that they have tabled amendments 45 and 46 to deal with the possible problem that one might have ended up with rogue and inappropriate remedies. Those measures therefore have my full support and I hope they will also have the support of the House.
	I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but I wish to discuss amendments 39 and 40, which relate to clauses 70 and 73 and the time within which those who obtain orders must return to court. The Bill specifies a relatively short period—no doubt the Minister knows precisely what it is—but for the purposes of computing time no account is taken of days when the courts might be closed. I proposed to the relevant Minister somewhat longer periods, because it seemed to me that a problem might arise in respect of bank holidays and public holidays, as the courts would not be able to deal with these matters sufficiently quickly to enable the time limits to be complied with. Some of that has been taken into account, because the Government now propose that Christmas day will be removed from the period of calculation in these clauses, but there remains a difficulty with which the Minister needs to grapple.
	I wrote to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and it was suggested that specifying Christmas day was sufficient in this regard, but what about Easter? As we know, it consists of two public holidays, Good Friday and Easter Monday, so we are talking about a four-day period. The Home Office’s response has been, “The courts are able to deal with this because they may open over the weekend.” The Minister needs to reassure the House that that is the position and that there is therefore enough time over the Easter holiday, in particular, for these orders to be dealt with appropriately and for the Bill’s time limits to be addressed.
	Government amendment 41 would alter clause 81, which deals with the recovery of costs against the owner of premises where an order is made—I have forgotten which part of the Bill this relates to, but the Minister will doubtless remind me. The Government’s point is that where such an order is made—for example, against a nightclub—the police should be able to recover their costs, and that is absolutely right. However, as I pointed out in Committee, nightclubs or late-night premises often are not owned by the people who occupy the premises where the nuisance occurs. For that reason, we need to include the word “occupier”, as the Government are now proposing. I am pleased that that piece of advice, which I gave for free—that is rare—was accepted. The amendment is therefore sensible and I hope it will command support across the House.
	I will rise to detain the House on Third Reading, but I must say that this is an excellent Bill because it deals with the nonsense of the fact that ASBOs were never enforced and were therefore not doing what the previous Labour Government intended they should do when they were introduced. I will make those points on Third Reading, but with that I will resume my seat and let one of my colleagues address the House.

Mark Field: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for welcoming me in that way.
	I wish to put on the record a few of my concerns about the Bill’s impact on the ability of inner-city local authorities to deal with particular instances of antisocial behaviour; I know that the Minister has been informed about them by the redoubtable cabinet member, Nickie Aiken, from Westminster city council. I shall raise two main areas of concern, to which I would appreciate the Minister giving consideration, and one specific amendment, which I suspect will have to be moved in another place in due course.
	First, on powers of arrest and direct access to the criminal justice system, criminal injunctions are, as we all know, more effective than civil injunctions in reducing high-level antisocial behaviour, which damages communities and harms the reputation of central London. The Bill proposes to replace ASBOs on application and ASBOs on conviction with IPNAs and criminal behaviour orders—CBOs—respectively. Breaching a CBO will automatically be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an IPNA will not. Local authorities will be able to apply for an IPNA, but will not be able to apply for a CBO. Therefore, local authorities such as Westminster city council—in a former life this would have applied to the shadow Minister in his role at the London borough of Lambeth—will no longer be able to apply directly for any order or injunction on antisocial individuals or groups that would lead to criminal proceedings in the event of a breach. Instead, local authorities, housing associations, Transport for London and even police chiefs will have to apply separately for an IPNA arrest warrant. Alternatively, local authorities will have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with the Crown Prosecution Service, which I fear will be operating with increasingly limited resources and capabilities, to place CBOs on antisocial individuals.

Steve Reed: At a time when the police have had to suffer a 20% cut in funding, is it appropriate to expect them to shoulder the additional burden of £1.5 million per annum in pursuing breaches of IPNAs?

Mark Field: I certainly do not think the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers reflect the cuts at ground floor level in the work that can be done by our local police. However, all of us appreciate that we are living in financially constrained times and will be doing so for many years to come. Where I suspect I share some of the concerns that he has expressed, not just tonight but during the passage of this Bill, is about a severe weakening of the ability of local authorities, in conjunction with the police, to deal with elements of antisocial behaviour.

Simon Hughes: I and a former leader of Lambeth council and others have dealt with these issues for a long time. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, I understand it and it will be made from experience. I hope he will tell us what he and Westminster city council cabinet members and officers think might be the right answer. None of us has a perfect solution. We are all trying to find the best combination of tools to have in the box.

Mark Field: Naturally, I will try to be constructive. I wholly agree that the lower level nuisance and annoyance behaviour covered by an IPNA does not always warrant the threat of criminal prosecution, which perhaps happened in the past with ASBOs. Among the concerns expressed earlier was that elements of those ASBOs were not being properly enforced. We should rightly look to avoid criminalising the country’s youth wherever possible, but in practice the specific problems that we face with, for example, the very professional, aggressive begging on the streets of Westminster, literally within yards of where we are all sitting tonight, can currently be tackled only through the use of ASBOs on application. We rely heavily on the genuine threat of arrest to protect victims and to deter professional aggressive beggars, who are completely different from the 16-year-old who has got into trouble by graffitiing a bus-stop, for example. We lose that threat under the new proposals.
	I want also to speak briefly about the antisocial behaviour committed by people with no fixed UK address. From the experience in Westminster city council area, but also in the City of London area that I represent, I know that tackling antisocial behaviour often involves dealing with organised aggressive begging gangs from across the EU. I fear that we will hear a lot more of this in the months to come. Some individuals travel to the UK in large numbers, with the sole intention of doing a short, but profitable begging stint before returning to their home. These people enter the UK according to their rights as EU citizens, and cannot currently be deported unless they remain in the country for longer than three months or commit a criminal offence. While they are in the UK, and particularly while they are here in central London, they have no fixed address and are completely transient in nature, with many sleeping rough.
	Where we have previously dealt with such individuals through ASBOs on application, under the IPNA system the local authority will be able to apply for an arrest warrant only after a breach has occurred, by which time the individual in question may well have left the country, entirely unchallenged, to return at a future date. These people are deliberately off the grid, and we must have some legislation in place that closes this potential loophole and does not actively encourage the gaming of the system.

Stephen Phillips: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Might provisions in other statutes be used, under which, where a crime had been committed, people could be deported without an ASBO having to be made against them?

Mark Field: I cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse, but my hon. and learned Friend knows considerably more about these matters than I do. He makes a relevant
	point, which is that we do not necessarily have to go entirely down that route. The ASBO legislation and this concurrent legislation is designed to look at the whole issue of antisocial behaviour in a constructive and codified way. The problems to which I have referred apply not simply to the City of Westminster, Southwark or inner-London boroughs. Increasingly, it will become apparent in places such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, so we should look at it fairly urgently. Without being overly negative about the potential open-door arrival of a significant number of people from Romania and Bulgaria, there is no doubt that some of the specific problems in central London in recent months have come disproportionately from groups who have already come to this country from those other EU states. We need to ensure that local authorities are given a chance to take action. As such, I strongly feel that the Bill should be amended better to reflect the circumstances that affect inner-city areas, recognise the particular challenges that are faced in the UK’s major cities and specifically enable a court to grant IPNAs with automatic powers of arrest in a wider variety of circumstances.
	This matter will have to be dealt with in amendments in another place. To answer directly the question put by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I hope that we will have a further amendment to clause 3 to add an additional subsection applicable only in major city centres or other designated areas, which varies the conditions under which a power of arrest attachment can be made to include wording such as “deliberately organised antisocial behaviour”. That will have to be dealt with in our further deliberations on the Bill.
	I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I accept that the Minister is aware of some of the specific concerns for Westminster, but I also very much accept that he may wish to deal with this in writing rather than going into it in great detail this evening.

Norman Baker: May I take the opportunity of my first outing in my new capacity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their good wishes and congratulations. I am deeply grateful for the support that has been shown across the House over the last week following my appointment. I look forward to working constructively with Members on both sides of the House as we take this agenda forward.
	I am also delighted to see my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), in the Chamber. I pay tribute to him for the significant work that he has done as a Home Office Minister. His attention to detail and his commitment have been exemplary, and I look forward to trying to emulate that in my role. I also welcome the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to his new role on behalf of the official Opposition.
	I will now deal with the various Government new clauses and amendments. Overwhelmingly, they follow up points raised in Committee, which is a testament to the effectiveness of the scrutiny the Bill underwent upstairs. There are a number of drafting and technical amendments in this large group. So as not to delay the House unduly, I will focus my remarks on the amendments of substance.
	The injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance and the criminal behaviour order are important new powers to deal with individuals who commit antisocial behaviour. Courts will be able to use them both to prevent certain behaviour and to require positive actions—for example, addressing a drug or alcohol problem that is an underlying cause of an individual’s antisocial behaviour.
	The Committee agreed non-Government amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) to clauses 1 and 21. These would require a court to avoid any conflict with a person’s caring responsibilities when attaching such conditions. This would be in addition to the duties that were already in the Bill, to ensure that conditions are suitable and enforceable and, so far as practicable, to avoid conflicting with a person’s religious beliefs, work, educational commitments or any other court order imposed on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane said to the Committee, we always expected courts to take account of caring responsibilities, which are clearly a relevant factor in ensuring that conditions are suitable and enforceable, and I repeat that for the benefit of the House.
	There is a concern that references to caring responsibilities might weaken the new powers in practice. A number of the agencies that would use and enforce injunctions and orders tell us that there is a real danger that specifically including caring responsibilities in the Bill would make it more difficult to secure appropriate conditions, and that is not in the interests of the victims that these injunctions are designed to protect. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we do expect these matters to be taken into account by courts considering injunctions as they relate to caring responsibilities.
	My hon. Friend the Member of Southwark and Bermondsey—I think he has gained a north somewhere; Bermondsey North and Southwark—asked why the words on religious belief were qualified with the phrase “as far as practicable”. I am advised that it is similar to the right to manifest one’s religion set out in article 9 of the convention. The right is qualified and can be limited where necessary and proportionate. For example, it is not necessary for someone who professes to be a Christian to attend church every single day. I hope that is helpful and answers his point.
	The Committee also agreed an amendment to clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to add head teachers and principals of further education colleges to the list of persons who can apply to a court for an injunction. The intention was to tackle bullying in schools and colleges. I agree that it is vital that powers are in place to address that problem, which blights the lives of too many young people, but we need to get the detail right. She rightly referred to the consultation that has taken place and the responses to it, and I am grateful for her analysis and her decision on how to proceed. However, I want to assure her that we have drafted guidance to explain how the injunction could be used to address bullying, with the help of front-line professionals and the BeatBullying organisation, which has advised us on the matter. I entirely accept her point about online bullying, a matter I was considering only this afternoon in the Home Office. I can assure her that, as far as I am concerned, bullying will not be taken off the agenda.
	Amendments 10 to 15 to clause 12 relate to the power to exclude the subject of an injunction from their home. As I have said, the Bill provides for prohibitions to be attached to an injunction. In extreme cases where the antisocial behaviour has involved actual violence or the threat of violence against another person, or where there is a significant risk of harm, someone can be excluded from their home, but only if they live in social housing.
	During the Committee’s consideration of that provision, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) and others questioned the distinction between tenants in social housing and those who rent in the private sector or own their homes. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that, from the victim’s point of view, which housing sector the perpetrator lives in is irrelevant, and there was broad support from the Committee for that view.
	Having sought the views of professionals over the summer recess, we agree. If allowing someone access to their home puts the victim at risk of violence or significant harm, powers must be available to stop that. Amendments 10 to 15 therefore extend the power to exclude a person from their home beyond the social housing sector. Of course, that power should be used only exceptionally, which is why it is subject to a high judicial threshold and, in the case of renters in the private sector and owner-occupiers, applications are restricted to state agencies, meaning the police and the local council. I hope that hon. Members will welcome our response on those matters. The Government has listened carefully to the Committee and the experts.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has said that his amendments deal with an issue that was clearly controversial: the ability to deal with social housing tenants but not others and the need for a level playing field. I hope that he will not forget to deal with amendment 166 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which would add some additional requirements, and that he might be persuaded that they are useful additions.

Norman Baker: My right hon. Friend is as eager as he was when he first arrived in this House many years ago. If he will allow me, I will get to the Committee and the amendments he referred to in his opening remarks in due course.
	Another important issue raised in Committee relates to the application of the new powers in relation to antisocial behaviour in or around a respondent’s home, this time in relation to the criminal behaviour order. The first condition that must be met before a criminal behaviour order can be made is that the court is satisfied that the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the offender. In Committee the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tabled an amendment to remove that limitation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made it clear at the time that the criminal behaviour order is not intended as a tool for tackling domestic violence, as other more suitable powers are available for that, and that remains the case.
	However, having considered the matter further, we recognise that there might be cases where antisocial behaviour is inflicted by one member of a multi-occupancy household on another and where the flexibility to apply for such an order could be helpful. Amendment 16 therefore removes that limitation.
	I turn now to the amendments to clause 93, which relate to the community remedy. That welcome initiative gives victims of low-level crime and antisocial behaviour a say in the punishment of offenders out of court. Police and crime commissioners will work with the public and chief constables to compile a menu of out-of-court sanctions that can be used in appropriate cases following consultation with the victim. At the heart of the community remedy is our commitment to empowering victims and communities to say what is right for them. I do not think that that will include use of the stocks, which was referred to earlier.
	We have brought forward amendments 45 to 48, which have three elements. The first two will put on the face of the Bill what had always been our expectation: the actions included in the community remedy document must promote public confidence in the use of out-of-court disposals and include an element that is punitive, restorative or rehabilitative. The third change is a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to which police and crime commissioners must have regard when preparing a community remedy document. A draft of that forms part of the document for practitioners, which we published last week.
	The other Government amendments in the group are largely technical in nature, and I have placed a detailed letter in the Library. I commend the Government amendments to parts 1 to 6 of the Bill to the House.
	I turn now to amendment 96, tabled by the shadow Home Secretary and spoken to today by the hon. Member for Croydon North. I am firmly of the view that antisocial behaviour still ruins too many lives and damages too many communities. There are, of course, problems in our inner cities, but there are also problems in our smaller towns, and that concerns all Members of this House.
	Up to March 2013, 2.3 million incidents of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police and we know other incidents were reported to councils and social landlords. The previous Government tried—genuinely, I think—to address the problem, but after more than 10 pieces of legislation introduced before 2010 we have been left with a mishmash of powers that is confusing for the public and for the professionals who have to use them, and that is less and less effective. The antisocial behaviour order may have worked well in individual circumstances, but overall it has not worked well. Such orders are too often seen as a badge of honour and, as has been said, over 50% of them have been breached at least once and just over 40% have been breached more than once. Also, the number of orders issued has been falling year on year. People are losing confidence in ASBOs.

Steve Reed: Why are the Government seeking to decriminalise antisocial behaviour when 80% of the public feel it is on the rise? How does that help?

Norman Baker: I will come on to the powers we are introducing, but the hon. Gentleman spent a lot of his contribution talking about the injunction to prevent
	nuisance and annoyance, which is one of the tools we are proposing, but we are also proposing a criminal behaviour order, a breach of which is a criminal offence. The CBO is in some ways most akin to the ASBO we are seeking to replace, the injunction being an extra tool.
	I know Members on the Opposition Benches are still wedded to ASBOs, despite the evidence, but by any reasonable assessment the statistics show it has been increasingly failing. I want a system that is more effective at tackling antisocial behaviour and has the confidence of the professionals who use it. We know that agencies such as the police, local councils and social landlords are working hard to protect victims and stop antisocial behaviour, but they need the right powers to do this. That is why we are replacing the existing powers with six streamlined, more flexible, quicker and more effective ones to protect the public better.

Steve Reed: The Minister talked about trusting the police and local councils and adding more tools to their armoury, so instead of abolishing ASBOs why does he not leave them on the statute book so that police and councils can choose whether it is appropriate to use them or IPNAs, or any of the other tools the Government are providing in this Bill?

Norman Baker: First, ASBOs have been increasingly ineffective and have become a badge of honour in some cases; secondly, we want to streamline the powers so they are clear; and, thirdly, we want to use powers that are quick and efficient and that do the job, which is what Members on both sides of the Chamber want: we all want a swift reduction in antisocial behaviour.
	As I have said, the main replacements for the ASBO are the injunction under part 1 of the Bill and the criminal behaviour order under part 2. In drawing comparisons with the ASBO, they should be seen together, rather than be taken individually. The injunction is a purely civil remedy. That means it has a lower test than the ASBO on application, coupled with the lower civil standard of proof, so it will be quicker to obtain than the existing order. Front-line professionals will be able to use it as a preventive measure to nip emerging problems in the bud before they escalate into something more serious—which I think is good news for victims— but, crucially, the court could also include “positive requirements” in the order. That is missing from the ASBO arrangements; indeed, that is one of their major flaws. That has meant the focus has been on stopping the behaviour, but not on getting individuals to deal with the underlying drivers of their behaviour. If we are to prevent reoccurrences of bad behaviour, it is very important we address that.
	Unlike for the ASBO, breach of the IPNA will not be a criminal offence. This means there is no risk of criminalising under-18s. It will also help to reduce the burden on the police and others in gathering and providing evidence. That does not mean that the injunction has no teeth if it is breached: it does. Adults can be imprisoned for up to two years for breaching the terms of the IPNA, and the court can detain an under-18 if it thinks that, due to the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available to the court is appropriate.
	We must not look at the injunction in isolation. It is complemented by the CBO, which will be available to deal with the most serious antisocial behaviour. Breach
	of a CBO will be a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. That is the same sanction as is available for the breach of an ASBO, but the CBO will be more effective than the ASBO because, like the injunction, it can have positive requirements attached to it to help the offender turn their life around.
	These reforms are about putting the victim first and providing streamlined, effective powers for enforcement agencies to do just that. Amendment 96 seeks to retain a discredited regime that has left people across the country suffering from antisocial behaviour. I therefore hope, perhaps optimistically, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment in due course.

Steve Reed: rose—

Norman Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will gladly give way.

Steve Reed: I am not planning to withdraw it. I wonder whether the Minister is dismissing out of hand the views of the organisations that wrote a letter to The Times saying that this is “Ill-thought-out legislation” that will waste police time and clog up the courts. The signatories to that letter include the Standing Committee on Youth Justice, Barnardo’s, Liberty, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, JUSTICE, the Children’s Society, the Howard League for Penal Reform, UK Youth, the Prison Reform Trust, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. It is disappointing to hear the Minister dismiss the legitimate concerns raised by those well-respected organisations.

Norman Baker: I am certainly not dismissing them, and they have been looked at carefully, but it is important to look at the IPNA and the criminal behaviour order in tandem rather than merely concentrate on one of them.

Stephen Phillips: Does my hon. Friend agree that rather then relying on letters from the great and the good, perhaps the best thing to do is to rely on the British people? He will no doubt remember that in 2012 Angus Reid conducted a survey in which only 80% of people said they thought that ASBOs had been effective in tackling antisocial behaviour. Is not that why we need to change the regime?

Norman Baker: That is exactly right. The shadow Minister said that the recent crime survey showed that 80% of people think that antisocial behaviour is increasing. That suggests to me that the current regime is not working and needs to be replaced by something more efficient.

Julian Huppert: The shadow Minister mentioned a list of people who have concerns about IPNAs. I think they would agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and I that we could look at those concerns, and I am sure that the Minister will do so. They do not support ASBOs, as he suggests; they would like to get rid of ASBOs and have an improved, more sympathetic IPNA.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention, which puts the matter on the record.
	The shadow Minister expressed concern about the costs of dealing with IPNAs and the new regime that we propose to introduce. It is worth quoting the chief constable of Thames Valley police, Sarah Thornton, who said:
	“So in terms of improving the effectiveness, yes we are going to have to train officers, but I think that is worthwhile…If there is a bit of additional training cost, it really would be well worth it in terms of additional effectiveness in tackling anti-social behaviour locally.”
	In other words, the relatively modest amount spent on training on IPNAs will more than repay itself in terms of the results that accrue. It is also worth pointing out that ASBOs were not without their costs either; it would be foolish to think that they were. A cost was involved in dealing with breaches of ASBOs just as there is with anything else. If I remember correctly, the shadow Minister quoted a cost of £1.5 million for breaches of IPNAs—allegedly; I am not quite sure where that figure comes from—but ASBO breaches cost money as well. If he wants to make a fair comparison, he ought to include that in his assessment.
	Let me turn to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey—[Interruption.] I am sorry—Bermondsey North and Southwark. I want to call it Southwark and Bermondsey because that it is what it was for so many years. Anyway, I mean my very old friend who moved the amendments. His amendments and those of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) pick up a number of points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is of course a very important Committee of this House. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill. Taken together, the amendments would introduce additional requirements that professionals and the courts would have to meet in order to use the new powers. While I agree that we must ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, I believe that those are already built into the Bill and fear that the Committee’s amendments would lose some of the benefits of our reforms in streamlining powers and processes to help victims and empower front-line professionals.
	New clause 33 is concerned with the use of injunctions in cases involving children and seeks to place in the Bill a requirement that the interests of the child are treated as a primary consideration when imposing an injunction, any associated conditions or sanctions for a breach. In shaping our reforms, we have, naturally, carefully considered the needs and rights of young people, which are important, so that we get the right balance between enforcement and helping those who commit antisocial behaviour to turn their lives around. I am a little concerned, to be honest, about the use of the word “primary” in new clause 33 with regard to setting that balance.
	The injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance can be used to deal with a wide range of behaviours, many of which can cause serious harm to victims and communities, but it must not become a means of targeting young people simply for being young people. We have been explicit in the draft guidance to front-line professionals—it was published last week—that in deciding what is “nuisance or annoyance” they must be mindful
	that the injunction should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused and are not likely to cause harm to victims or communities. For example, children simply playing in a park or on a street, or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place, may be annoying to some, but those activities are not in themselves antisocial and should not be treated as such.
	For cases where an injunction is sought and issued, we have included provisions for consultation so that youth offending teams, as well as any other agencies, such as local authorities and youth charities, are to be involved in the process.
	The Bill also requires that the court must hear the views of the relevant youth offending team in breach proceedings. This will also allow the court to hear the views of the young person, in addition to the young person’s views being put forward through a legal representative. Moreover, the Bill explicitly specifies that a court can impose a detention order on a young person only as a very last resort—that is, where it determines that, because of the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available is appropriate.
	As I said in response to an earlier amendment, given that the injunction is civil it will not criminalise young people. Indeed, it should prevent criminality, through the use of positive requirements. In these ways the new powers improve on the orders they replace in order to give young people who behave antisocially the best chance of addressing the underlying causes of their antisocial behaviour in the long term, which benefits both the perpetrator and the victims. I emphasise that normal behaviour is not being caught by this. I want to make it very clear that there should be no court orders for playing in the street.
	On reporting, I accept there is a balance to be struck. Publicising orders can provide reassurance to victims and communities that action has and will be taken when they report antisocial behaviour. However, I agree that, when deciding to publicise an order against a young person, agencies must be satisfied that doing so is necessary and proportionate, taking into account the likely effect on the young person in question. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that agencies must carefully decide each case on its own facts. That is already the way the courts have approached these provisions and I expect them to be very careful in their use of this particular power.
	Amendments 158 to 162 relate to the definitions in respect of the injunction, specifically to the test and the conditions that may be attached to them. I reassure my right hon. Friend that the injunction is an arbitrary or unreasonable power and that in my view it achieves much of what he seeks in his amendments.
	The test for issuing an injunction has two stages: an applicant must satisfy the court, first, that an individual has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct causing nuisance or annoyance and, secondly, that it is just and convenient to grant the injunction. The test of “just and convenient” is well known to the courts, being the test that currently applies to the granting of an antisocial behaviour injunction. It is, therefore, supported by several years of case law. As part of the test, in deciding whether to issue an injunction the court must, as a public body bound by the Human Rights Act, have regard to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness before granting an application.
	Similarly, any prohibitions or positive requirements granted must be for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour, so it would not be possible or right to impose requirements that were completely unrelated to the respondent’s antisocial behaviour. It is important not to import new requirements into the test that could set the threshold too high and delay providing relief to victims and communities.

John McDonnell: I wonder whether the Minister could re-read the script that he has just read. He spoke about an individual having
	“engaged or threatened to engage in conduct causing nuisance or annoyance”.
	The wording in the clause is
	“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.
	That is the problem. That is where judgment enters into it. That is why amendment 158 was tabled. It would put the emphasis on reasonableness in that judgment.

Norman Baker: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I make no promises, but I have a lot of time for his analysis of the legislation and will consider the point carefully.
	I will turn to the amendments that my right hon. Friend has tabled to clause 12, which sets out the limited circumstances in which an injunction may exclude someone from their own home. I agree that the courts must consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to exclude someone from their home, regardless of whether they live in social housing, rent privately or own their own home. However, I am not persuaded that those principles need to be included in the Bill.
	We have made it clear in the guidance that not only do we expect that the exclusion power will be used only rarely, but that the court will pay special attention to whether it is proportionate to use the power, taking into account the individual’s article 8 rights. As such, applications should be made only in exceptional cases that meet the high threshold set out in clause 12—that is, where there is a threat of violence or a significant risk of harm.
	Several of my right hon. Friend’s amendments to clause 21, which provides for the criminal behaviour order, are similar to those that he tabled in respect of the injunction and are unnecessary for the same reasons. The draft guidance to the Bill makes it clear that we expect that the courts will follow existing case law from the House of Lords in relation to antisocial behaviour orders and that they will apply the criminal standard to criminal behaviour orders. The amendments to clause 21 are therefore unnecessary.
	My right hon. Friend has also tabled an amendment to the new dispersal power to explicitly exempt all peaceful assemblies from its use. I agree that that is an important point, but I would argue that the safeguards that we have built into the legislation will ensure that the dispersal power is used proportionately, while maintaining the flexibility to allow the police to act quickly to protect victims and communities from antisocial behaviour. Where behaviour is lawful and is not causing harassment, alarm or distress, the test for using the dispersal power will not be met. Mere presence in an area is not itself a ground for dispersal, so the power could not be used. The test will be met only if someone’s
	behaviour is causing or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to members of the public, or crime or disorder in the locality.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I both raised that last matter. I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but I do not see how it is logical to protect picketing and processions in the Bill, as was done in Committee, but not the general right of free assembly. I do not think that the Bill should say that one can do certain things and not face a dispersal order, but not make it clear that one can do other lawful things without facing a dispersal order.

Norman Baker: There was particular concern about processions and picketing. That is why they were singled out for mention in the Bill. I have made it plain this evening that where a behaviour is lawful and is not causing harassment, alarm or distress, the test for the use of the dispersal power will not be met. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks.
	Amendment 177 would remove the ability of landlords in England to seek to evict tenants when they or members of their household have been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that clause 91 sends out the strong and important message that if somebody gets involved in a riot, whether it is near their home or not, there may be consequences for their tenancy. However, Members have asked me to reflect on that matter and I will, of course, listen to the House and reflect on it without prejudice to the outcome of that reflection. We will respond fully to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in due course. For now, however, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press amendment 177 or new clause 33.
	The shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is no longer in his place, spoke about amendment 82, which is a consequential amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Provisions on antisocial behaviour orders are among the exceptions to the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of local government matters. Amendment 82 simply updates that exception to recognise the abolition of the ASBO, thus preserving the status quo with regard to the Assembly’s competence. The UK Government is firmly of the view that amendment 82 is purely consequential upon the abolition of antisocial behaviour orders, so a consent motion is not required. It is also difficult to wait for the outcome of the Silk commission, as a failure to amend the Government of Wales Act now would alter the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Our intention is therefore to preserve the status quo and no more.

Stephen Phillips: Is it not a difficulty, though, that even though the amendment may be intended simply to be consequential and to replace the provision relating to the ASBO, it is drawn so broadly that, as Opposition Members have pointed out, it might also have an effect in other areas in which the Assembly currently has legislative competence?

Norman Baker: The advice I am getting from officials is very clear—that this is an appropriate conclusion to reach. However, three Members have now raised
	that matter, and they have done so in quite strident or convinced terms, so I will write to them with a firm conclusion.

Steve Reed: We are raising these issues because the Welsh Assembly Government have raised them. Perhaps, rather than driving something through after the UK Government have legal advice that is clearly different from the Welsh Assembly Government’s, the Minister will commit to speaking to the Welsh Assembly Government before taking further steps.

Norman Baker: As I understand it, we have spoken to the Welsh Assembly Government, but I think I have made a generous offer in saying that because Members have raised a constitutional point, although I believe the Government’s position is sound—that is the clear advice I am getting from officials—I will ask officials to set that down for me in writing, and I will write to the three Members who have raised the matter this evening. I think that is quite a good offer, if I may say so.
	I hope that I have been helpful in responding to the amendments and new clauses that Members have tabled. I think we have a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for dealing with all the new clauses and amendments—those that I moved not on my own behalf but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment; and his own Government amendments.
	For the record, first, my constituency is called Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I know that it is the fourth formulation of the name in 30 years, but none the less, we have to keep up. Secondly, the Minister is still a good friend, but for him to call me “my very old friend” was not a way to get off on the right foot. He is not that much younger than me, although I accept that there is a gap between us.
	On the substance of the new clause and amendments, I am clear that we are right to say no to antisocial behaviour orders, for reasons that Members of all parties have given evidence of. We are also right, as a Government, to introduce two options—a criminal order and a civil order. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, Ministers will produce something that makes clear the benefit to youngsters of not having a criminal record, because they will not have committed a criminal offence.
	In relation to certain of the new clauses and amendments, I believe that the Joint Committee and other colleagues will not want to let the matter rest. I refer particularly—I am guessing, because the Committee will form its view collectively—to new clause 33, amendments 158, 165 and 166, and, most importantly, amendments 176 and 178.

John McDonnell: The last one is amendment 177. I think the right hon. Gentleman said it was amendment 178. On amendments 176 and 177, I do not think the Minister has gone anywhere near far enough to satisfy the concerns of the Joint Committee or other Members.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I meant amendment 177, which is the highest-numbered in the group. I apologise if I said amendment 178 mistakenly. I think the Joint Committee will hold the same view as him.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that by not taking the opportunity of a lifetime to make concessions on the Floor of the House on Report of the first Bill for which he was responsible in the Home Office, he may have lost a reputation that could never have had a parallel. However, he has an opportunity to redeem himself and establish his credentials.
	Seriously, however, some of the issues involved are important ones of civil liberties. The Joint Committee thinks so and Members from throughout the House think so, so I hope the Minister will persuade his colleagues that there need to be changes, and that the ones suggested in the new clause and amendments could be among them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment made: 1,page2,line7, leave out paragraph (b). —(Norman Baker.)

Clause 4
	 — 
	Applications for injunctions

Amendments made: 2,page3,line38, at end insert—
	‘() the Natural Resources Body for Wales,’.
	Amendment 3,page3,line39, leave out from ‘functions’ to end of line 43 and insert
	‘, or a Special Health Authority exercising security management functions on the direction of the Secretary of State, or
	() the Welsh Ministers exercising security management functions, or a person or body exercising security management functions on the direction of the Welsh Ministers or under arrangements made between the Welsh Ministers and that person or body.’.
	Amendment 4,page3,line44, leave out paragraphs (h) and (i).
	Amendment 5,page4,line1, at end insert—
	‘( ) In subsection (1) “security management functions” means—
	(a) the Secretary of State’s security management functions within the meaning given by section 195(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006;
	(b) the functions of the Welsh Ministers corresponding to those functions.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 8
	 — 
	Arrest without warrant

Amendments made: 6,page5,line21, at end insert—
	‘(za) a judge of the High Court or a judge of the county court, if the injunction was granted by the High Court;’.
	Amendment 7,page5,line27, leave out ‘(3)(a)’ and insert ‘(3)(za) or (a)’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 9
	 — 
	Issue of arrest warrant

Amendments made: 8,page5,line38, at end insert—
	‘() a judge of the High Court, if the injunction was granted by the High Court;’.
	Amendment 9,page6,line3, at end insert—
	‘( ) A warrant issued by a judge of the High Court must require the respondent to be brought before that court.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 12
	 — 
	Power to exclude person from home in cases of violence or risk of harm

Amendments made: 10,page6,line24, after ‘lives’ insert ‘(“the premises”)’.
	Amendment 11,page6,line25, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment 12,page6,line27, leave out ‘the local authority or housing provider’ and insert—
	(i) a local authority,
	(ii) the chief officer of police for the police area that the premises are in, or
	(iii) if the premises are owned or managed by a housing provider, that housing provider,’.
	Amendment 13,page6,line35, leave out ‘local authority or’.
	Amendment 14,page6,line37, leave out ‘authority or’ and insert ‘housing’.
	Amendment 15,page6,line40, leave out ‘authority or’ and insert ‘housing’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 21
	 — 
	Power to make orders

Amendments made: 16,page11, leave out line 26 and insert ‘any person’.
	Amendment 17,page12,line4, leave out paragraph (b).—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 32
	 — 
	Authorisations to use powers under section 33

Amendment made: 18,page18,line23, leave out from ‘if’ to first ‘that’ in line 25 and insert ‘satisfied on reasonable grounds’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 40
	 — 
	Power to issue notices

Amendment made: 19,page23,line1, leave out subsection (5).—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 43
	 — 
	Appeals against notices

Amendments made: 20,page24, leave out lines 19 to 22.
	Amendment 21,page24,line31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	‘(3) While an appeal against a community protection notice is in progress—
	(a) a requirement imposed by the notice to stop doing specified things remains in effect, unless the court orders otherwise, but
	(b) any other requirement imposed by the notice is of no effect.
	For this purpose an appeal is “in progress” until it is finally determined or is withdrawn.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 45
	 — 
	Offence of failing to comply with notice

Amendments made: 22,page26,line9, leave out ‘specified in’ and insert ‘alleged to constitute a failure to comply with’.
	Amendment 23,page26,line11, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment 24,page26,line19, leave out paragraph (a). —(Norman Baker.)

Clause 60
	 — 
	Orders restricting public right of way over highway

Amendment made: 25,page36,line7, at end insert—
	‘( ) Before a local authority makes a public spaces protection order restricting the public right of way over a highway that is also within the area of another local authority, it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 62
	 — 
	Challenging the validity of orders

Amendments made: 26,page37,line6, at end insert ‘, or
	() a variation of a public spaces protection order.’.
	Amendment 27,page37,line10, after ‘order’ insert ‘or variation’.
	Amendment 28,page37,line11, after ‘order’ insert ‘(or by the order as varied)’.
	Amendment 29,page37,line13, after ‘order’ insert ‘or variation’.
	Amendment 30,page37,line15, after ‘order’ insert ‘or variation’.
	Amendment 31,page37,line17, leave out ‘public spaces protection order’ and insert ‘order or variation’.
	Amendment 32,page37,line17, leave out ‘its prohibitions or requirements’ and insert
	‘the prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order (or by the order as varied)’.
	Amendment 33,page37,line20, after ‘order’ insert ‘or variation’.
	Amendment 34,page37,line21, after ‘order’ insert
	‘(or by the order as varied)’.
	Amendment 35,page37,line24, leave out from first ‘or’ to end of line and insert
	‘variation, or any of the prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order (or by the order as varied)’.
	Amendment 36,page37,line25, leave out ‘its prohibitions or requirements’ and insert
	‘the prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order (or by the order as varied)’.
	Amendment 37,page37,line29, after ‘order’ insert
	‘, or of a variation of a public spaces protection order,’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 63
	 — 
	Offence of failing to comply with order

Amendment made: 38,page38,line3, at end insert—
	‘( ) Consuming alcohol in breach of a public spaces protection order is not an offence under this section (but see section 59).’. —(Norman Baker.)

Clause 70
	 — 
	Duration of closure notices

Amendment made: 39,page42,line14, at end insert—
	‘( ) In calculating when the period of 48 hours ends, Christmas Day is to be disregarded.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 73
	 — 
	Power to court to make closure orders

Amendment made: 40,page44,line11, at end insert—
	‘( ) In calculating when the period of 48 hours ends, Christmas Day is to be disregarded.’.—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 81
	 — 
	Reimbursement of costs

Amendments made: 41,page49,line17, after ‘owner’ insert ‘or occupier’.
	Amendment 42,page49,line21, at end insert—
	‘( ) An order under this section may be made only against a person who has been served with the application for the order.’.
	Amendment 43,page49,line22, after ‘must’ insert ‘also’.
	Amendment 44, page 49, line 26, leave out paragraph (c).—(Norman Baker.)

Clause 93
	 — 
	The community remedy document

Amendments made: 45,page64,line3, at end insert—
	‘( ) For the purposes of subsection (2), an action is appropriate to be carried out by a person only if it has one or more of the following objects—
	(a) assisting in the person’s rehabilitation;
	(b) ensuring that the person makes reparation for the behaviour or offence in question;
	(c) punishing the person.’.
	Amendment 46,page64, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
	‘(a) have regard to the need promote public confidence in the out-of-court disposal process;
	(b) have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about how local policing bodies are to discharge their functions under this section;
	(c) carry out the necessary consultation and take account of all views expressed by those consulted.
	‘( ) In subsection (3)(c) “the necessary consultation” means—
	(a) consultation with the chief officer of police for the area,
	(b) consultation with whatever community representatives the local policing body thinks it appropriate to consult, and
	(c) whatever other public consultation the local policing body thinks appropriate.’.
	Amendment 47,page64,line16, at end insert—
	‘( ) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under subsection (3)(b).’.
	Amendment 48,page64,line22, at end insert—
	‘“out-of-court disposal process” means the process by which a person is dealt with under section94 or by means of a conditional caution or youth conditional caution.’.—(Norman Baker.)

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Functions of Scottish Ministers under Firearms Acts

‘(1) In section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (weapons subject to general prohibition)—
	(a) in subsections (1) and (1A), for the words between “commits an offence if,” and “, he has in his possession” there is substituted “without authority”;
	(b) in subsection (4), for the words from the beginning to “the Scottish Ministers” there is substituted “An authority shall be subject to conditions specified in it, including such as the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (as appropriate)”;
	(c) in subsection (6), for the words before “revoke an authority” there is substituted “The Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (as appropriate) may at any time, if they think fit,”.
	(2) In section 5A of that Act (exemptions from requirement of authority under section5)—
	(a) in subsections (1), (2)(a), (2)(b), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), for “or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998)” there is substituted “or the Scottish Ministers”;
	(b) in subsection (6), for the words after “without the authority of the Secretary of State” there is substituted “or the Scottish Ministers (as appropriate)”.
	(3) In the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—
	(a) in sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1) and 8 (exemptions from prohibition on small firearms etc), for “The authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998)” there is substituted “The authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers”;
	(b) in section 7(3), for the words “or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998)”, in the first place where they occur, there is substituted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
	(4) In the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1750)—
	(a) in Schedule 1, in the entry for the Firearms Act 1968, the words “5 and” are omitted;
	(b) in Schedule 5, paragraph 3 and paragraph 18(2) to (6), (7)(a) and (8) are omitted.’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4—Firearms’ licensing—
	‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 28A (Certificates: supplementary) insert—
	“28B Assessing public safety
	(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under sections 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
	(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
	(3) When assessing public safety within this section the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”.
	(3) Section 113 of the Firearms Act 1968 (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) is amended as follows.
	(4) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.”.’.
	Government amendments 100 to 105.

Damian Green: The purpose of the amendments is to preserve the position of the authority of Scottish Ministers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. The new firearms offence of possession for sale or transfer of any prohibited weapon is committed where the conduct is undertaken
	“without the authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers”.
	The existing functions of the Secretary of State under section 5 were transferred to Scottish Ministers by order under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 on devolution. Additional functions under section 5 need to be transferred to Scottish Ministers in relation to new offences created by the Bill. Therefore, new clause 20 revokes the entry in the 1999 order in respect of section 5 of the 1968 Act, and transfers afresh all the Secretary of State’s functions under that section to Scottish Ministers. Amendments 100 to 105 are consequential on new clause 20.
	I suspect it will help the House if I respond to new clause 4 before the Opposition deal with it, in that peculiar way we sometimes have. The new clause has been tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench and relates to two firearms licensing issues that we discussed in Committee and during the Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) in early September. The first part of the new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness, and drug or alcohol abuse.
	As I said in Committee, the police already have the ability to take those factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse, and in response to those, on 31 July we published specific guidance on that issue, providing greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. Just last week, we published a new consolidated guide on firearms licensing law. It is therefore fair to say that the Government have taken on board the many important points that were raised in Committee, and we have been quick to
	act. As the House will agree, decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused. That new guidance is being applied now by police forces up and down the country, which I hope will be welcomed across the House.
	New clause 4 also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I consider, however, that guidance must remain just that. It is right that chief officers have discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local area, taking into account the merits of each case and the newly published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at local level. The Government have sought to make decision making a local responsibility wherever possible. I do not want to undermine that, which is what new clause 4 would do.
	We are ensuring that where national action can support local decision making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms and explosives licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. In order to assess standards, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up the consistency of decision making across the country. Again, that was a legitimate point made in the course of our debates and outside. People wanted greater consistency and, again, we have taken action. As I said, HMIC is now doing that work.
	The second part of new clause 4 seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. I reiterate that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why we are introducing a new online licensing system, which cuts the administrative burden of the old paper-based system. We do not need primary legislation to make this happen.
	Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve, in one giant step, full cost recovery, which I assume is the purpose of new clause 4. As I have said in other forums, we are considering proposals for an interim fee increase and I will make an announcement on that in due course.
	In conclusion, I hope the Opposition Front-Bench team will acknowledge that progress has been made in all the significant areas where criticism of the system could legitimately be made a few months ago. I hope I have persuaded them that further legislation is unnecessary. On the off-chance that I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Opposition Front Bench that new clause 4 is unnecessary, I will have no hesitation in inviting the House to reject it.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for setting out his amendments. The Opposition think these are entirely sensible and we support them. However, we depart from
	the Government on what more needs to be done. That is why I shall speak to new clause 4 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).
	The new clause would do three things. First, it calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. Secondly, it would amend the Firearms Act 1968 to introduce an explicit presumption that anyone with a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness would be prevented from acquiring a firearms licence unless they could provide exceptional evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, it would introduce full cost recovery to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it.
	Why is this needed? There are 146,426 people in the UK who have firearms certificates, covering 498,048 individual firearms, and 570,726 people who have shotgun certificates, covering 1,333,701 individual shotguns. Given that this involves nearly 2 million weapons, we should be thankful that gun crime is a relatively rare phenomenon in the UK. This is an indication that in most cases the licensing system does work and the overwhelming majority of members of the shooting community are very conscious of their responsibilities and of public safety. The problem is that when a gun crime does occur, its effects tend to be catastrophic.
	We all know of the horrendous case of Derrick Bird, who killed 12 people, including himself, with a legally owned firearm. In the past five years there have been 43 female gun deaths in Great Britain and in at least 23 of them a legally owned weapon was used. In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents. In 2009 that figure was 100%.
	I want particularly to mention the case of Michael Atherton, to which the Minister referred. Michael Atherton killed his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull, her niece Tanya Turnbull and himself on new year’s day 2012. He did that with a legally owned shotgun. Michael Atherton had three legally owned shotguns despite a history of domestic violence, alcohol abuse and mental health problems. A note attached to Atherton’s first application for a firearms licence in 2006 said:
	“Four domestics, last one 24/4/04, was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner and son and daughter. Would like to refuse, have we sufficient info to refuse re public safety?”
	Durham constabulary decided that it could not refuse; in fact, Michael Atherton was allowed to keep his weapons despite the police being called to domestic incidents on another two occasions, including one in which he threatened to blow his head off with his own guns.
	Since that tragedy, Alison Turnbull’s son, Bobby Turnbull, has been campaigning for a change in the law to prevent such tragedies from happening again. I pay tribute to Mr Turnbull for the brave and committed way in which he has gone about his campaign. I know that the Minister has met Bobby Turnbull and that the Minister, along with all members of the Public Bill Committee, received a letter from Mr Turnbull supporting Labour’s new clause.
	There were multiple police failings in the case, but, as I have pointed out, it was not a one-off and the Durham coroner, the Independent Police Complaints Commission
	and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have all proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness and violence, especially domestic violence, from acquiring firearms. That is why Labour is proposing new clause 4 to enshrine a clear principle that there should be a presumption that anyone with a history of domestic or sexual violence, drug or alcohol problems, or mental illness should not be allowed a firearm. I do not agree with the Minister that that undermines local decision making; it helps and strengthens it.
	Never again should the police, looking at the file of a violent offender, think, “I would like to refuse this application but I am not sure whether I can.” Owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. In Committee, a number of hon. Members were very concerned about using mental health in such a way. We have had a number of debates to discuss mental health and the discrimination that might be faced by people who have had mental health problems. I reiterate that the proposal is to set down a presumption that can be rebutted if there is good evidence—for example, if someone had mental health issues many years ago but has not suffered recently. We are also not saying that people with a history of mental illness cannot take part in shooting. They can, but at registered clubs, not with their own guns to which they would have access at home.
	The Government claim that the introduction of the new guidance, which the Minister mentioned, addresses that issue. The Opposition question whether that is enough. We know that the Gun Control Network has said:
	“The Home Office says it is issuing new Guidance to the Police on Firearms Licensing but the new draft does not change the ethos. There is no statement anywhere that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.”
	The problem is not just whether the new guidance is sufficient but whether guidance could ever be sufficient. Let me share with the House the case of Mr X, in which the police attempted to block a firearms application only for that attempt to be turned down on appeal.
	Mr X’s shotgun licence was seized after he was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault against a 17-year-old woman. The police thought the allegation was plausible, but the young woman did not want to appear in court so the charges were dropped. That was not the first allegation against Mr X. Other women had previously made complaints about him. His GP also reported that he was suffering from acute stress. The deputy chief constable of the relevant police force took the decision to revoke Mr X’s shotgun licence. However, despite the deputy chief constable’s taking a day to appear in front of the court, Mr X had his shotgun licence returned by the court. I appreciate that the Minister will not want to comment on individual cases, but I would like him to confirm to the House that the outcome of that case would not have been altered by the new guidance.
	The Opposition have tabled new clause 4 because we believe that the firearms licensing system, particularly for shotguns, needs to be more robust to protect the public, but we also recognise that the system could be better. I pay tribute to the work of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the constructive way in which it has engaged in the debate on gun licensing. It has considerable expertise and I am grateful for its assistance. The association is right to point out that the firearms licensing system often fails to serve the
	shooting community. There are big discrepancies between police forces and sometimes big delays. It is not uncommon for a renewal to take many months. There is a general consensus that the system needs to improve.
	I have been impressed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Chief Constable Andy Marsh on that, but, obviously, there is only so much that ACPO can do. One reform to which the Minister referred was the introduction of the electronic application process. However, my understanding is that only a few forces have signed up, and its effect will therefore be minimal. Will he, in his final comments, say how many police forces have signed up to the new application process? Will he explain what progress is being made to encourage more forces to sign up?
	The final part of new clause 4 deals with full-cost recovery and would require the Home Secretary to consult the police before setting a fee, to enable police forces to recoup all the costs they incur in the administration and assessment of firearms licences. Currently, a firearms licence costs just £50 for five years and only £40 for a renewal, but if an application is processed properly it takes up a considerable amount of time, including home visits and background checks, which is not reflected in the cost of the licence. The cost of administering the firearms licence is much higher, and therefore the taxpayer is currently subsidising the firearms licensing system to the tune, the police tell us, of £18 million a year. The cost is particularly high for some forces. The net cost for Thames Valley police was £780,000.
	Paragraph 6.2.1 of the Treasury document “Managing Public Money”, which was published by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to explain the Government’s approach to cost recovery and resource allocation principles, states:
	“The standard approach is to set charges to recover full costs. Cost should be calculated on an accruals basis, including overheads, depreciation (eg for start up or improvement costs) and the cost of capital.”
	Will the Minister explain whether that paragraph applies to firearms recovery? Can he justify the £18 million a year net subsidy currently provided to the licensing regime when front-line police officer numbers are being cut by 20%? Many police and crime commissioners do not believe that the current situation is acceptable. In the current public spending climate, can the Government justify attacking what they call the “spare room subsidy” while defending the spare gun subsidy?
	All hon. Members want improvements in the firearms licensing system, which means that we want investment in infrastructure and new systems, but also that we want the police to conduct more background checks. However, the Government need to start explaining where they want the funds to provide that to come from. Do they want funds to come from general policing budgets—money that could otherwise be keeping bobbies on the beat? Will the Minister explain why, at £50 for five years, the annual cost of a firearms licence is barely a third of the cost of a fishing licence, which costs £27.50 a year, or why it is the equivalent cost of a Criminal Records Bureau check, which costs £44 and requires only a name to be checked against a database?
	The Government’s current position is, as the Minister has said, that they will aim to introduce a fee regime under which 50% of the cost is recovered by the police
	by 2015. Why only 50% and why will that not come into effect until after 2015? It seems fairly shambolic of the Government to introduce a 20% cut in police budgets in 2010 and then to introduce a 50% fee recovery five years later. The Government have claimed that they want to improve the system of background checks associated with a firearms licence, even though they will not commit to putting this in legislation. But can the Minister confirm that he is asking police forces to move resources from front-line policing into licence applications?
	On the basis of the case I have put before the House, I would like to test its opinion on this matter, because I think that it has widespread support.

Steve Rotheram: I want to focus my remarks on new clause 4. Part 8 of the Bill deals with firearms, and I broadly welcome the Government’s proposals on sentencing, but I urge them to go further on checks and fees. Following the Dunblane shootings in 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher lost their lives, the Labour Government were right to ban handguns and introduce tough new licensing laws, but it is also right that we, as parliamentarians, periodically review such laws. I therefore commend the Minister for the introduction of these proposals.
	Despite the UK having one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the world, it is no secret that there are pockets of the country in which the criminal use of firearms remains a problem. It is often most notable in large cities, where gangs can plague communities. However, it would be wrong to assume that the sale or transfer of prohibited firearms is the only consideration that Parliament should look to reform.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right to pursue legislative change against law-abiding citizens who do not transgress? Would it not be better to focus attention on the lawbreakers instead?

Steve Rotheram: I suppose it would depend on the aim of the legislative change. The community that I represent needs a strong message to be sent from this House that the current level of gun crime is unacceptable and that we will give the police every power possible to tackle the blight on our neighbourhoods.
	In recent years, we have also seen a rise in the use of firearms, breaching police and public safety, by individuals with track records of domestic violence and mental illness, leading one coroner to call for “root and branch changes” to gun licensing laws. For instance, in the last 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents, and 53% of female gun deaths in the last five years have involved the use of a legally held weapon, so the improved guidance that the Minister has provided for the police on this issue is to be welcomed.
	Such statistics reinforce Labour’s call to ensure that applicants do not have a history of domestic violence or violent conduct as a statutory requirement and not just as a discretionary guideline. While the last Labour Government went a long way to reducing crime and encouraging safer, stronger communities, and introducing tough sentences for gun crimes, too many people still believe the use of guns to be an occupational consequence of their criminal activity. Perhaps the most high-profile incident of gun crime was the appalling murder of
	11-year-old schoolboy Rhys Jones in Liverpool in 2007. Sean Mercer was sentenced to life in prison, but what made the incident even more sickening and unpalatable was that Mercer was just 18 years of age. That is why the Government are right to be tough on those who possess prohibited firearms and who sell or transfer them to criminal gangs, which blight neighbourhoods in so many of our major cities.
	In my own city, we have tried many innovative approaches to tackling gun crime. Across Merseyside, the police and the local media deserve enormous credit for the campaigns they have undertaken on firearm detection and recovery. This is not just some right-wing tough-on-crime agenda; this is an issue that primarily affects the lives of ordinary people up and down the country, something that Parliament must ensure is reflected in the strength of the laws that govern gun control licensing and in the length of imprisonment. That is why I support clause 100, which seeks to separate the existing offence in the Firearms Act 1968 into two parts, and, in doing so, make it an offence to possess prohibited firearms for sale and transfer, and introduce a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
	It is also right for the clause to increase the maximum penalty for the existing offences of manufacture, sale or transfer, or the purchase or acquisition for sale or transfer, of unauthorised firearms from 10 years to life imprisonment. Speaking with Merseyside police and the governors of local prisons, it is becoming increasingly clear that the tactic deployed by gangs is to use the same firearm for different shootings, but then to redistribute the gun to different members of the gang as and when it is “needed”, so to speak. By making the transfer of a firearm a crime punishable by a life sentence, I am positive that this will act as a stronger deterrent, and that those who ignore this change and are later prosecuted will receive severe custodial sentences.
	I support clause 101, which seeks to amend sections 50 and 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalty for the unlawful importation of firearms, prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, from 10 years to life imprisonment. This is particularly important for an area such as Liverpool, with our revitalised docks now shipping record tonnage of trade. Inevitably, there will be those who wish to import illegal firearms into the port. The clause sends a strong message to people involved in the smuggling of weapons into Merseyside that if they are caught, this activity will carry a life sentence.
	I support clause 102 in its efforts to allow British Transport police officers to carry firearms without requiring an individual certificate, giving them the same powers as officers of other police forces. Many incidences of gun attacks have taken place on public transport in Britain over the years. It is therefore right that we remove this anomaly and give the transport police the powers they require to combat this specific threat.
	I am keen for the laws on firearms to be as tough as possible. New clause 4, tabled by the Labour party, will help the Government to achieve this common aim. New clause 4(4) notes the rising cost to police forces of administering the current firearms licensing regime. According to the Minister, more than 170,000 firearms licences and approximately 620,000 shotgun licences have been issued. The current fee for a firearm or a
	shotgun licence is only £50 for five years, yet the cost to the administrating force is, according to the Gun Control Network, about £200. Considering that the firearms licence averages out at just £10 a year, it is cheaper to own a gun than it is to own a fishing licence. That is absurd. I cannot see why the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise a large number of gun licences that are being issued to and used by a minority of individuals who wish to use guns for recreational sport. I am not aware of any other licensing system that subsidises to that degree.

Tessa Munt: In a rural area such as mine, a number of people have to hold firearms licences because they deal with fallen stock. I assume that that would be a legitimate business expense that they could claim to do their job. Putting the firearms costs at the correct level so that the police do not have to ask other taxpayers for some sort of subsidy would be a logical thing to do, and would not cause problems in rural areas where these firearms are needed.

Steve Rotheram: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that if the burden can be transferred to another expense and taken from the police force budgets to subsidise this practice, it could only be good for law enforcement in the country. Last year, Devon and Cornwall police estimated that they spent a total of £1.2 million on completing firearms licence applications, but recouped only £514,000 in fees—phenomenally disproportionate.
	Unsurprisingly, I am very much of the opinion that we should implement full cost recovery in the UK. In 2012, the police spent almost £20 million on administering firearms licences. I do not believe that the public would deem that to be a good use of declining police resources. I understand that the Government are in the process of implementing a new fees system, to which the Minister just referred. Unfortunately, it represents a missed opportunity because it will not include a full cost recovery proposal, only an increase in the fees.
	I shall finish by sharing with the House the remarks of Lord Justice Openshaw who, in April this year, sentenced seven members of the notorious Croxteth Crew gang to a combined total of 113 years in prison. The Crocky Crew and the Strand gang from Norris Green terrorised parts of the border between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). Lord Justice Openshaw’s words paint a picture of how crimes can escalate and how the pattern of crime develops in parallel with continued feelings of social isolation. In all too many cases, criminal activity is a graduated process.
	Obviously, only a minority progress to the most serious crimes, but for many it starts as antisocial behaviour and becomes more serious with burglary, violent assault and drug use. Then, before long, it becomes gun crime, punishment shootings and murder. What is more startling is that this pattern is developing quicker than ever before, and the accused are often mere teenagers or predominantly young men in their early 20s when they are caught and prosecuted.
	These words should make us all think about how we vote and about the message that this Bill sends to criminals across the country. The judge said of the gang:
	“Their days were spent posturing outside…shops dealing drugs. It is as if they belong to some sort of outlaw tribe which has rejected all society’s moral standards and conventions. Their minds are spent towards feuding and prosecuting vendettas against former associates.”
	Central to this gang’s dominance was an arsenal of weapons, including several pistols, a double-barrelled shotgun and grenades—in this country! While the fear of crime is much greater than the likelihood of being a victim of crime, firearms are a major problem and we should never be complacent about them. That is why the whole House should support the Government’s reforms and the Opposition amendments. Together, we can redouble our efforts to get guns off our streets.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for his very thoughtful speech. I am also grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their support for new clause 20.
	It is clear from today’s debate that there are three separate issues to be discussed. There is the illegal use of guns that are held illegally, there is the illegal use of guns that are held legally, and there are the costs associated with guns that are entirely legally held and legally used. The first thing that we must do is ensure that those issues do not become confused with each other. Each of them relates to an extremely serious area of public policy, but the response to each of them needs to be different.
	I cannot improve on much of what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton about how tough we need to be on the criminal use of illegally held guns. I am grateful to him for his support for clauses 100 and 101 and the amendments to those clauses. They plug loopholes in the existing law, which will hopefully make policing the criminal use of illegally held guns—and illegally distributed guns, to which he rightly referred—less difficult.
	As was made clear by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and by me in my opening remarks, the illegal use of legal guns can lead to terrible tragedies. The Atherton case, which was raised by the hon. Lady, left a huge scar on a family and, indeed, on a whole area, and gave rise to a number of recommendations. In my view, all that divides the two Front Benches on the issue is how effective we consider each other’s proposed methods of dealing with it would be. I shall not weary the House by repeating a speech that I made at the outset of the debate, but we have thought long and hard, and, moreover, have taken significant action since the Committee stage, when we last debated the issue. We published the new firearms guidance at the end of July.
	Let me address directly the points that the hon. Lady reasonably made about individual court decisions. As she rightly said, I cannot comment on such decisions, not least in view of the fact that her comments were slightly opaque because, understandably, she could not mention names. I can only reiterate that the new guidance makes it absolutely clear that evidence of domestic violence and abuse will generally indicate that an individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm. It would be difficult to make it clearer that that is the way in which the court should interpret the guidance in the event of an appeal.
	One of the other lessons that the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the coroner drew in the Atherton case was that police enforcement needs to be more effective. We can write laws or guidance, but ultimately it is the human beings who execute those laws that make the difference. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police all over the country, in every police force, have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. As I have said, the College of Policing will publish authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to the Home Office guide. In addition, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has been conducting a scoping exercise, and will use the evidence from that to decide whether a full firearms licensing inspection should take place.

Mark Spencer: I hope that, in the course of his deliberations, the Minister will consider some of my constituents who, although they are by no means wealthy, enjoy participating in target practice or clay pigeon shooting. I hope that, as a result of this process, shooting will not become the preserve of the rich.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I shall deal shortly with the third issue that I identified earlier, namely the costs of legally held guns.

Jim Shannon: What guarantees or safeguards will be in place for husbands or partners who are firearms holders but who have had malicious allegations made against them? What legal protections will be in place for them when the investigations by the police are completed and the malicious allegations are found to be untrue?

Damian Green: The protections are the new guidelines, the new professional standards issued by the college and any recommendations that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary comes up with from its inspection. Those things will make the whole system more robust, so that the specially trained individual police officers who will be making those investigations will be better trained than ever before to judge whether, for example, an accusation is malicious or whether it is a genuine accusation and there is evidence of domestic violence or abuse and that therefore the individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm. Clearly, what one can expect and demand in such cases is that the individual officer taking the decision is as well trained as possible and is operating to very clear guidelines. That will be the case, and it is the best protection against malicious accusations. Equally, or perhaps more importantly, it protects those who may have been victims of domestic abuse and who may be victims of something worse if a gun is left in the wrong hands. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the debate are seeking and, as I say, it is an argument about practicality.
	The third aspect to this debate relates to the costs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked a number of questions, and the answer to her question about e-commerce and the new system is that 24 forces are already signed up to phase 1, which comes into force either this year or next year, with eight other forces involved in phase 2. Thirty-two forces have therefore already agreed to do this, and I know that the national
	policing lead on firearms is energetically going around the country to ensure that all other forces eventually sign up.
	The hon. Lady made the point, quoting the Treasury document, about full cost recovery. It is true that, in principle, full cost recovery within the Treasury’s policy on managing public money does apply to firearms licensing. Of course, we are in discussion with the Treasury on the subject of firearms fees. As I said, we are working towards full cost recovery as our ultimate objective. However, in this period our commitment is to increase the efficiency of the licensing process, as a first step. That is essential to achieve a balance between increased income and increased efficiency. The trick—this is true in all areas of public spending—is not to regard full cost recovery as a given, because we can always bring the costs down. We have already seen in the early pilots of the use of an electronic system for licensing not only that people get a quicker and better service, but that it is considerably cheaper for the police to operate, and so there is a benefit all round. One hon. Member cited a figure of £200 from the Gun Control Network, and I know that the police have come up with a figure of about £190 for full cost recovery, but the figure will be much lower under an e-commerce system. That is to the benefit of the police and of those applying for licences, be it for working purposes, as is the case in many rural parts of the country, or for recreation, which various hon. Members have mentioned.

Diana Johnson: Given that such huge cuts are being made to public services these days, does the Minister feel entirely comfortable saying that he thinks it is acceptable for the public purse to subsidise people who want to have a gun and get a gun licence to the tune of £18 million? I understand what he is saying about the future, but the reality today is that lots of police forces are under pressure, so should the full cost recovery not be brought in now, rather than at some future date?

Damian Green: The point that I am making is that it is today; the use of an electronic licensing system is available. Some police forces are piloting this already and this will lead to a much more efficient system. As I say, our ultimate aim is full cost recovery. We are moving towards that, but at the same time making sure that the full cost that is recovered is much less than it was before, not just to save the money but because that will lead to a much better and more efficient system.

Tessa Munt: Surely, using e-commerce for firearms licensing will still involve police time in investigating in detail the circumstances of an applicant, including a visit to ensure that the premises can hold firearms in a secure and safe fashion, hidden from general view, and certainly from young people and those who are less able. Surely the standard charge of £190 or £200 cannot be reduced that much.

Damian Green: The short answer is that it can. Yes, the police will want to do thorough checks of the premises and so on, but the more that one can reduce the work of processing pieces of paper, which is a lot of
	what is involved now, with all the attendant inefficiencies and expense for the police, the more the police can do the checks that the hon. Lady and I both want to see happen.

Tessa Munt: Can the Minister give me some idea of what the police feel the cost would be if they were to use the e-commerce system? I remind the Minister yet again that the cost of a morning’s shooting—clays—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) referred is not cheap. This is leisure and recreation.

Damian Green: The hon. Lady may be right, but the more people use electronic systems, the more savings there are, so it is quite difficult to put an exact figure on it, particularly with a network system, where the costs will be considerably lower than the figures we have been quoting. I can tell from the hon. Lady’s face that I will not necessarily convince her on this matter, but I hope that I have convinced the House. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s new clause 4, and I am grateful for the general support for the Government’s new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Firearms’ licensing

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 28A (Certificates: supplementary) insert—
	“28B Assessing public safety
	(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under sections 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
	(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
	(3) When assessing public safety within this section the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”.
	(3) Section 113 of the Firearms Act 1968 (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) is amended as follows.
	(4) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 215, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 100
	 — 
	Offence of possessing firearms for supply etc.

Amendments made: 100,page71,line37, leave out ‘follows’ and insert ‘set out in subsections (2) to (6)’.
	Amendment 101,page72,line2, leave out from ‘without’ to end of line at line 4 and insert ‘authority’.
	Amendment 102,page72,line12, at end insert—
	‘( ) For subsection (3) of that section there is substituted—
	(3) In this section “authority” means an authority given in writing by—
	(a) the Secretary of State (in or as regards England and Wales), or
	(b) the Scottish Ministers (in or as regards Scotland).”’.
	Amendment 103,page72,line12, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 5A (exemptions from requirement of authority under section 5)—
	(a) in subsections (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), the words “subsection (1A) of” are omitted;
	(b) in subsections (1) and (3), for “any prohibited weapon or ammunition” there is substituted “any weapon, ammunition or missile specified in subsection (1A) of that section”.’.
	Amendment 104,page72,line30, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 1 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (extension of section 5 of the 1968 Act to prohibit certain small firearms etc), after subsection (7) there is inserted—
	(7A) In sections 2 to 7 below any reference to subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act shall include a reference to subsection (2A) of that section as it applies in relation to a firearm specified in subsection (1)(aba) of that section.
	(7B) In section 8 below the reference to subsection (1)(aba), (b) or (c) of section 5 of the 1968 Act shall include a reference to subsection (2A) of that section as it applies in relation to any weapon or ammunition specified in subsection (1)(aba), (b) or (c) of that section.”’.—(Damian Green.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Amendment: Qualifying Offences) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Before we come to the petition, I appeal to colleagues who are leaving the Chamber to do so
	quickly and quietly, displaying the same courtesy to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) as they could be assured of from her if roles were reversed.

PETITION
	 — 
	Train Services (Brighton and Hove)

Caroline Lucas: This petition has been signed by almost 1,300 individuals, the vast majority of whom are residents of my home city of Brighton and Hove. All are rail users who are united by concerns at the rising cost of rail travel and the poor quality of train services. They are particularly concerned that since privatisation the cost of train travel has risen by 23% in real terms and the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by a factor of between two and three times. My constituents want to see the public money invested in the railway used to deliver a better service for passengers, while also achieving wider social and environmental goals and real consideration given to bringing rail back into public ownership.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of rail users and passengers from Brighton and Hove,
	Declares that they are concerned at the extremely high cost of tickets for train services provided by Southern and First Capital Connect, which are often overcrowded and unreliable.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Transport to take the necessary steps to ensure rail fares are significantly reduced; to introduce minimum standards for on-train facilities; and to deliver a railway run to a high standard, designed as a public service rather than one primarily run to generate a profit.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001226]

PUB COMPANY BUSINESS MODELS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Greg Mulholland: Before I start, I want to say that I will take interventions only from Members who have told me that they want to intervene, one of whom is the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group. Moreover, given that the Secretary of State will be able to say very little in response to the debate because of the current stage of the consultation, I have been told that I can speak for 23 minutes, so I will try to conclude at 10.29 pm.
	We have all heard about, and many MPs have experienced first hand, the effects of the leased pub company model and how it has destroyed pub businesses, families and lives, but tonight it is the cold, brutal, harsh economic reality of this model that I am going to expose. I will also expose how not taking the right action now would be a disaster not only for many pubco publicans and the communities that stand to lose their local pubs, but for the recovering UK economy.
	Perhaps a better title for my speech would be, “The Great British Pubco Scam”, for this whole sorry saga is a tale of one of the worst examples of reckless, irresponsible capitalism this country has ever seen—a get-rich-quick scheme for a greedy few that has marred lives and closed thousands of pubs and that has caused losses of billions for the UK economy, pension funds and the Treasury.
	Turning to the history, the large, leased pubcos are not pub companies in any real sense. They are highly leveraged property companies whose business model is based on charging unreasonably high rents and outrageously high prices for beer to their tenants. This goes back to the beer orders. Prior to 1989, most pubs were tied to the large brewers. It was believed, rightly, that this led to a substantial restriction in the choice of products available to consumers, so the beer orders restricted to 2,000 the number of pubs that could be owned by and tied to a brewer.
	The beer orders, however, failed in one spectacular way, which the Campaign for Real Ale and others spotted: they clearly should have prevented any company, not just breweries, from owning and supply-tying more than 2,000 pubs. That was the tragedy and disaster of the beer orders.
	A loophole was exploited by many and the anomaly was quickly spotted by bankers, speculators and financial engineers such as Hugh Osmond, Roger Myers and Guy Hands. The result was the formation of a number of so-called pub companies, such as Punch Taverns, Enterprise Inns, Unique Pub Company and Admiral Taverns. Those at the helm had little if any connection to the sector and very little empathy with it. Everyone wanted a piece of the action, and they all piled in to make money, with little interest in the pubs, the people who ran them, the communities that used them or the wider economic impact.
	Aided by investment bankers, pub company bosses produced financial models and projections that assumed practically perpetual growth in the rents and beer prices
	that they could charge their captive market of tied licensees, who would be unable to resist such aggressive pricing strategies. Through securitisation and more conventional debt, large sums of money were raised to acquire a large number of pubs from brewers who were obliged to dispose of them and, after that, from other pub companies.
	Seeing that they were on to a good thing, the pubcos, led by Punch, went on an acquisition spree, buying up pubs for more than their actual value, simply to inflate their share value artificially. In valuation terms, the same yield or multiple was applied to inflate portfolio values, with hypothetical wet rents being used, rather than actual numbers. To maintain the wet rent at as high a level as possible, beer prices have been increased year on year, substantially above the rate of inflation. So as to inflate artificially the pub and estate values, and then to borrow vast sums against that imaginary valuation, the companies were adding to the dry rents the profits achieved by wholesaling beer to create an overall rent. That led to the values being falsely inflated.
	During the period of growth, Punch Taverns and Enterprise Inns found themselves in the FTSE 100 as their share prices peaked. However, it was not to last for long. From 2007, with the credit boom in fever pitch, retail investors kept piling in. Even though a prudent chief executive officer must surely have seen the writing on the wall, Ted Tuppen at Enterprise Inns was handing himself dividends and using company funds to buy back shares, including his own, at a rather fuller price. A quick look at the share prices of Enterprise and Punch, and to some extent even Greene King and Marston’s leased operations, reveals the profile of a classic pump-and-dump operation, with a huge surge like a giant heartbeat, then failure and the resultant flat line.
	With positive broker comments and heavy financial public relations, the insiders exited and the gullible lost money. Pension funds, choosing to believe the hype from the companies and the endless positive messages of house brokers, stayed in and lost fortunes for pensioners. Naive retail investors did the same. The winners were the insiders and the directors; the losers were the publicans, their communities and the pensioners whose funds unwisely left money in the pubcos.

Grahame Morris: I pay tribute to the excellent work that the hon. Gentleman, who is my hon. Friend in this matter, has done with the all-party save the pub group. I associate myself and the Labour party—not only the Back Benches, but the Front Bench—with the excellent case that he is putting forward on the completely unsustainable nature of the pubco model, which exposes licensees to the double whammy of inflated pub prices and excessive rents.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members from all parts of the House who have seen this practice for what it is and supported the response to it.
	Favoured funds were the providers of much of the debt funding. At the peak of the madness, as much as £600 million a year was being removed from UK pubs and paid, much of it overseas, to hedge funds in the US and other debt providers. I wonder whether the Secretary of State and his officials were aware of that.
	Famously, Larry Robbins of the $7-billion fund Glenview Capital Management described Punch Taverns’ hapless tenants as the source of ever more money for Punch and his fund. David Einhorn, the wealthy manager of Greenlight Capital in New York, was also a heavy investor in pubcos. Following a taped conversation between him, a broker and Punch Taverns’ CEO, Giles Thorley, it became apparent that his track was a little too inside and he was fined £7.2 million by the Financial Services Authority. I wonder whether the Secretary of State knew about that.
	When someone has seen the writing on the wall and wants to get out with their bag of swag, what do they do? They find somebody else to hand it on to. Giles Thorley was the perfect foil for Guy Hands, who seduced him into running Unique Pub Company just as it was being sold to Enterprise. Hugh Osmond, also by now looking for the exit door, poached Thorley to Punch Taverns. As the share price was pumped in 2010, Giles Thorley, clearly seeing the writing on the wall, sold out and made his fortune, albeit a smaller one than those of his mentors. Mr Tuppen at Enterprise, with a lacklustre career prior to forming his pubco, could not believe his luck as he was courted by the City with seemingly unlimited money to buy more and more pubs.
	With the securitised money washing through the pubcos, all that was left was a largely debt-ridden sector paying interest rates of up to 8.5% on billions of pounds. As we all know, the money was to be made by squeezing the life out of hard-pressed tied tenants, sucking others into the scam and then, when all else failed, closing and selling off run-down pubs for alternative use.
	A key part of the scam was mis-selling, which the other vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), has previously raised. Enterprise Inns, for example, conducted an in-house study of sales, profits and costs in a sample of its estate, and despite establishing a much higher level of costs from that quoted to tenants, it maintained utterly unrealistic low levels of business overheads that barely allowed for repair and maintenance, let alone staffing, training and business promotion. As we know, many tenants took on unsustainable businesses, losing their entire life savings before inevitable business failure. The situation was akin to loan sharks, with the misleading presentation of the proposition, attractive terms of entry and often initial discounts, but without the cold, hard, unsustainable reality and the wholly unrealistic future that went with signing up being spelled out.
	Then there was the role of valuers. It is odd that Humberts was the chosen valuer of both large pub companies, Punch and Enterprise. It also helps them to have their own man inside the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors writing the valuation guidelines for the properties in their sector so that they can be applied in their favour. Yes, it is Enterprise Inns’ very own national rent controller, Rob May, who has been overseeing the process since 2005. At one time he was the chairman of the valuation party. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the interpretation of the new guidance is still controlled by the group that Mr May participates in. Select Committees and the Government have identified that there was confusion in the interpretation and application of the new RICS guidance, and despite requests even from the Department for Business, Innovation
	and Skills, RICS has simply referred the matter to Mr May’s group. Did the Secretary of State and his officials know that?
	Then there was another wheeze, involving rating. Knowing that most tied pubs turn over little money, would it not be advantageous for the pubcos to have a system of rating where all the usual rules were ignored in favour of a special scheme whereby the rates paid by a company’s tenants were artificially lowered using a scale based on turnover rather than the usual method of looking at rent? Of course, if the company’s tenants are paying lower rates, it can increase the rental burden at rent reviews and, of course, increase the capital value of its pub estate. Just £5,000 per annum per pub amounts to £25 million per annum across 5,000 pubs, and the capital value increases by up to £300 million all of a sudden. That was all helped, unwittingly, by the taxpayer. Did the Secretary of State and his officials know that?
	Then there was the issue of full repairing and insuring leases. Suddenly, the company that owned a building did not have to pay anything for maintenance, inside or out—it was like a tenant renting a house or flat and then having to maintain the entire property. Of course, the pubco was heavily protected to ensure that it had as good an investment as possible by passing on as many costs as possible to the tenant.
	The key to the scam, of course, is double-overcharging. The pubcos derive two rents. The dry rent is the fixed income for the property, the wet rent the large profit derived from selling beer to the tenant at inflated prices. In the recent Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers survey, we see that far from being lower than open-market free-of-tie rents, the dry rents alone that pubcos charge are higher. That is a de facto abuse of the tie. Worse than that, in a tied pub, with wet rent added to dry, rather than the usual rent of 10% of turnover, the aggregate rent is fast approaching 20% of sales, hence the incredibly derisory income derived by many tenants.
	Perhaps the most suspicious part is the so-called wholesale price of beer—an artificial instrument maintained to ensure that excessive profits, over and above those that can be gained in the open market, are available to companies that own pubs. No one in the free trade pays the full wholesale price, or anyway near that amount, for any beer, and only unfortunate tied publicans are subjected to that excessive pricing. Far from being a discount, in reality tied tenants are paying more than any right hon. and hon. Member would by going to their local brewery.
	To give one stark example, in six years an 11-gallon keg of Foster’s from Enterprise has gone up from £107, excluding VAT, to £151—an increase of £44. Data from wholesalers show that in the free trade that keg cost £77 six years ago and £87 today—an increase of £10. The same duty rates, and the same increased manufacturing costs and overheads apply, yet the price increase to a tied tenant has been nearly four and a half times that of a free-of-tie publican over six years for the same product. If that is not a manipulation of pricing, I do not know what is.
	We then come to the enforcers—Brulines, or Vianet as it was recently rebranded, knowing its already damaged reputation. It is pertinent to note that the company was started by Derrick Collin, who was convicted for blackmail and conspiracy in 1986. He devised the flow monitoring technology that was to become Brulines. It is a rudimentary
	system, but instead of being used simply to check flow as a helpful tool, it is used, through intimidation, to threaten tenants and provide calculations for “buying-out fines.” It has not been tested in situ by any formal agency, and is shown to be highly inaccurate in several reports by experts, including one from a trading standards officer. It could be considered to be in use in trade, but at the moment it is not regulated under the Weights and Measures Act 1986. It has no CE mark, no other certification, and the lease documentation signed by lessees means that if they are threatened by such fines, they risk legal costs of their own to defend those charges. To be clear, no independent expert evidence as to the accuracy of the system has yet been heard in court, and I ask the Secretary of State to look at the issue again.
	The situation is clearly a disaster for tied publicans, but also for the UK economy. Look at the collapse of share prices: 95%, 98%—perhaps only an 80% collapse from Enterprise. Punch Taverns and Enterprise Inns have arguably been in a form of passive administration for several years. They are zombie companies that do not pay dividends, and they have no growth plan or export potential. They just about pay the cost of their debt by selling off their assets. That asset stripping is happening now—slash and burn. Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, the two largest pubcos, collectively disposed of more than 5,000 pubs between 2008 and 2012—one third of all of their pubs. No other part of the sector has experienced anything like that level of disposal and failure.
	A common technique used to generate even more profit is the use of “churn”, which involves forcing the failure of tenants over time and replacing them periodically. That enables the pub company to retain rent deposits, pursue personal guarantees, take new deposits and ingoing costs, and perhaps charge a higher rent over time to the new tenant. Data leaked from Punch in 2009 and released to the media showed that the pub company “churns” as much as 25% of its entire estate in any one year, and that average individual tenants might be expected to last no longer than three years in their pub. Enterprise Inns’ 2013 interim results reveal that of its 5,720 pub tenants, 1,463—more than 25%—have been in occupation for less than a year.
	Such a situation is also bad for the taxpayer. The taxpayer-owned Lloyds bank had to write off some £600 million when Admiral Taverns went into administration in 2010. Similarly, Royal Bank of Scotland acquired just over 1,000 pubs in 1999 and sold them at a loss to Heineken—effectively the same people from whom it had bought them—in 2011.
	The situation is clearly bad for the economy, but is it bad for everyone? The obvious and sad answer is no. Despite the share prices tumbling, pubco bosses still managed to find the resources to pay themselves astonishing returns. Last year Ted Tuppen of Enterprise Inns received a basic salary of £640,000, as well as a bonus of £329,000 and pension contributions of £160,000, resulting in his taking home more than £1 million. This is clear and grotesque reward for failure—something that my right hon. Friend said he would stamp down on.
	There is some very worrying lobbying going on. There is baseless, hysterical and thoroughly dishonest scaremongering to try to persuade my right hon. Friend
	and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and also the officials. Much of that, I am glad to say, has been dealt with through the Fair Deal For Your Local “Setting the Record Straight” report. I gently remind the House that in its report of 2008-09 the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee commented about pub company bosses that
	“in evidence to us both Mr Thorley of Punch and Mr Tuppen and Mr Townsend of Enterprise Inns made assertions which, on investigation, proved to give a partial picture, or on one occasion were positively false.”
	Even this year we have had the chief executive of the so-called British Beer and Pub Association—in truth, the big brewers and pubcos association—making two factually incorrect statements when appearing before the Committee on 11 June, and then saying on “Sunday Politics South East” on 9 June that the Government had their own figures on pub closures, which they clearly do not.
	The solution is clear and it is what people are afraid of. The solution suggested by the Select Committee is for tenants and lessees of the large companies—I stress that this applies only to large companies; it would not apply to family brewers—to have the option to pay an independently assessed market rent only. That is the only way to stop the endemic overcharging. I was delighted and the House was delighted, having made clear its views in a unanimous motion, that the Secretary of State made clear the Government commitment when he said in a letter to the Chair of the Select Committee in January that
	“the Government's proposals would address abuses of the tie, through enshrining the principle that ‘a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free of tie licensee’ in the Code”.
	The only way to do that is the Select Committee solution—the market rent-only option, also known as the free-of-tie option with open market rent review. There is a positive future with that—increased certainty and confidence for brewers, more jobs and investment in brewers, good news for smaller brewers, who would have greater access to market, and good news for consumers, who would see a greater choice of beer and a cheaper pint in pubcos. I ask my right hon. Friend to look out for the new research coming from the Federation of Small Businesses tomorrow, and I ask him to sit down with his officials and look at that before he makes any final decisions.
	The market rent only option would save pubs because it would stop the kind of asset stripping that is going on around the country. The provisions of tied leases and tenancies enable pubcos and others to circumvent the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 security of tenure protection. When sites are very valuable for development, pub companies are changing terms and applying pressure to drive tenants out. I can show my right hon. Friend cases—there are some close to him—where that is clearly happening.
	In conclusion, pubs will continue to be viable businesses, despite changing times, but they will no longer be a guaranteed source of over-rentalisation for property companies, whether they brew or not. That model is gone. It is nearly dead, but without the market rent only option it will take down thousands more pubs in its death throes. The great British pubco scam has done
	huge damage to pubs and the UK economy, but as long as the overcharging is allowed to continue, this will happen. I gently point my right hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, in the direction of his 2010 speech about “spivs and gamblers” and the reckless behaviour that brought the UK banking sector to its knees. Having heard what I have reported tonight, can anyone think that that is not a perfect description of what has happened in this sector?
	There is clear support for reform in the House, as 81 coalition MPs have signed the early-day motion or expressed their support for the Fair Deal For Your Local campaign, which is calling for a market rent-only option. My right hon. Friend can be clear that we can and would win a vote in this House. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) has indicated that it would be assured of the support of the Opposition and we would also have the support of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who represents the Green party.
	In 1969, a Monopolies Commission report recommended the market rent-only option. It was needed then and it is certainly needed now. I believe that my right hon. Friend can and will be the person who has the courage finally to do it. The choice for him and the Government is stark, although they could ignore the campaign, not introduce a market rent-only option, let things continue and be blamed for the continual asset-stripping of pubs and the destruction of other small businesses. We need action now not just to assist thousands of publicans and save pubs but to provide a boost to local economies and to the UK economy.

Vincent Cable: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for raising the issue and for his dedication to promoting, encouraging and supporting a fair and flourishing pub sector. He has a deep knowledge of the subject that was much on display this evening and I think that it is fair to say that he has played an enormous and disproportionate role in getting the policy debate moving in this House. That took us to the recent consultation on statutory regulation. He knows and acknowledged that we shall soon respond to the consultation, and I cannot say more about it other than that I will not be intimidated by scaremongering, which seems to be his fear.
	My hon. Friend has left me approximately five minutes in which to respond, so I will not be able to say a great deal. He acknowledged that he did not expect a reply on the subject of the consultation, but he used the opportunity to develop his criticism of the business model of the pubcos in general. Although many of the abuses he described were highly specific, they are not unique to the pubco industry. We saw problems of over-leverage in a whole set of industries, notably banking, and the horrible consequences of that. He has provided examples of another sector where those problems occurred in a different way.
	My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. I cannot answer them all in the handful of minutes I have available, but he asked specifically about the evidence
	on the rent of tied licensees set against that of those who are untied. We are all aware of the ALMR benchmarking survey that shows that for the second year running tied pub rent has exceeded the free-of-tie rent as a proportion of turnover. Tied rents as a proportion of turnover were 10.7% whereas for the free-of-tie rent the figure was 9%. He has asked me to check a number of other specific points and we will certainly do that.
	Let me make a few general points to round up the debate. There is consensus on both sides of the House that although this is an important industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, it is also an area in which many of the publicans who communicate with us have a strong sense of facing hardship, adversity and unfairness. I acknowledge the work of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills over the years as well as that of the all-party save the pub group in raising awareness of the issue.
	Just last week—I think that this is the report my hon. Friend described as coming out tomorrow—the Fair Deal For Your Local campaign, backed by the Campaign for Real Ale, the Federation of Small Businesses, the GMB union and various tenants’ groups published “Setting the record straight”. That report brought together much of the material in this area. We have had four Select Committee reports on whether the tied model causes an imbalance in bargaining power and we have received a vast amount of correspondence from tenants. We acknowledge—this is the common ground—that the problems faced by tenants are real and demand our attention.
	In the short time I have, I should stress that the tied business model, as opposed to abuses of it in recent years, is probably not the main source of the problems in the industry. I am not sure how far my hon. Friend agrees with that, but the number of pubs has been declining for three decades at least—there were 70,000 in 1980 and there are 50,000 today. Neither the 1989 beer orders nor the pub company consolidation, which is the source of the problems he describes, brought about a major change in the rate of decline. There have been bigger and deeper problems in the commercial property market, in which over-leverage was a common feature.
	However, I appreciate that his central point—this is the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House—is not the rate of closures, but the low incomes prevalent in the tied centre and the impact they have. The question throughout is how we deal with those abuses. Initially, we hoped that self-regulation would work. As we know, there was an agreement between the pubcos and tenant groups in November 2011. The pubs independent conciliation and arbitration service and an industry framework code were introduced, but they have not gone far enough, and the problems persist.
	There is plenty of evidence of the ongoing hardship faced by individual publicans. Work commissioned by CAMRA suggests that, based on self-reported income, 57% of tied tenants earn less than £10,000 a year, compared with—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).